◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys1.dyndns.org)(xys888.dyndns.org)◇◇ 给“专读英文文献”的汪丁丁教授改改英文作业 方舟子 看完汪丁丁教授的这封英文公开信，可以明白他为什么不敢去英文刊物上发表 其大作，也可以明白为什么他把英文文章翻译得那么糟糕。其表述基本上是 “汉译英”的中式英语。一个在美国大学（夏威夷大学）拿过经济学博士的人 英文水平差到这种程度，还不如我接触到的一些从未留过学的国内科技人员的 水平，匪夷所思。顺便改几个低级错误。 > the western language has been corrupt 此处不能加定冠词。既然不是专指某一种语言，那么必须用复数。 > any significan thought significan应是significant > the logocentrism of western language fails 同样，此处必须用复数 > neuron science 没有一门学科叫neuron science（神经元科学）。神经科学的正确说法是 “neuroscience”。 > any other disciplined research works “disciplined”的意思是“受训练的”。汪教授在这里的意思显然是想说 “专业”，discipline只有当名词用时才有这个意思。汪教授大概也意识 到不能把三个名词堆积在一起，于是自做聪明把discipline动词化，却自创 新词。其实只要说any other disciplines就可以了。 > any disciplined expert 搞不清楚他在这里再次用disciplined想表达什么意思。"disciplined expert" 的意思是“受过训练的专家”，这大概不是他想表达的意思。如果想说“专家”， expert就可以了。另外，expert是可数名词，所以这里必须用复数。 > this not convincing 少了个is > the Chinese libertarians 汪教授在这里显然想说“中国自由派”，正确的说法是"Chinese liberals"或 "Chinese liberalists"，而不该用"libertarian"（意志自由论者、自由权鼓 吹者）。另外此处也不该加定冠词。 > learn sciences and mathematics 这里的science不宜用复数。 > So do I and others of my colleagues 汪教授这里把自己也当成自己的一位同事了。"others of"应该去掉。 > talking about sciences and mathematics 同样，这里的science不宜用复数 > reminded me of 这里不应用过去式 > any an expert’s view of 汪教授把“任何一个专家”汉译英成“any an expert”，呵呵。any和an不该连 用。应去掉any。 > those who are en-powered 没有"en-powered"这个词或这种用法。汪教授如果想说的是“授权”，正确的用 法是empowered。 > by a deploma 文凭的正确写法是diploma > in say the context of China’s social transition 大大不通，"say"应去掉。 > for you need to be forced to read his books 不通，for应去掉。 > Thus I remain my liberty at corresponding to you with or without your words. 汪教授在这里想说的是“我保留我的权利”，那么应该用“I reserve my right to”。 没有“remain my liberty”这种表达法。 像单复数、定冠词、时态、拼法错误等，在随意写的英文中容易出现，不一定与英文 水平有关。但是像disciplined research works、the Chinese libertarians、any an expert、en-powered、remain my liberty这种汉译英的生造表达法，打死我也写不 出来。他的英文之差，正是从这里表现出来的。这样的英文也好意思拿出来摆显，正 是因为太缺乏自知之明的缘故。 jiangli评： ^_^，五体投地，汪的英文还没看完一半，我就晕了◎◎。 汪丁丁最适于讲授的课程为“文凭与职称学”，主要告诉我等后辈如何在国外 混博士文凭及在国内如何混教授职称，呵呵。想当年被香港大学扫地出门后， 还在“读者文摘”上自我吹嘘，真是深得“厚字诀”。 顺便说一句，他在第二段中为自己及其他国内“著名”经济学家没有英文论文 发表的辩护显得苍白得近于无赖。有空来搞个“无赖经济学”玩玩儿。：D 附：汪丁丁致网人Heidegger的英文公开信 Dear “Heidegger”, let me, in English this time, continue my reply to your critique on me and almost all other Chinese economists. To me and my colleagues such as Zhou Qiren, Fan Gang, or Zhang Weiying, or anybody you have named in your list, there is no need to publish on foreign journals in order to do better research works than foreign economists in China. Simply, because we are Chinese, and we think more easily as well as more successfully than an American or a German about our problems in the Chinese context, not in an American or a German context. By the way, since you are “forced” by your supervisor to read Derrida in French and Heidegger in German, why don’t you try to understand a typical Derridian position that the western language has been corrupt enough to spoil any significan thought, and the logocentrism of western language fails to home our authentic lives as Heidegger carefully specified. The way I am reading all the philosophy, psychology, biology, neuron science or any other disciplined research works is different from any disciplined expert. You may criticize it, but to my understanding as to many thinkers in the world, that is the right way to read and especially to think. The task of thinking is dramatically different from that of scientific research, as Heidegger carefully and repeatedly said and followed by Gadamer’s life-long refinement over the thesis. If you feel this not convincing, you may also find similar ideas from the works of Brentano (Husserl’s teacher) or Dilthey. Just be more mind-ful when you read thinkers’ books, those books are not mathematical logic, but thoughts. And, as you are doing Ph.D. research, you’d better also taste a little bit Kant’s “critique of pure reason”, then, you may be able to tell me anything Arendt said. Also, your saying that Derrida is right now visiting University of California doesn’t change the fact that Derrida and Fang Zhouzi are in totally different positions if not exactly opposite, just as my telling you that Derrida visited China recently does not change the fact that he and the Chinese libertarians including myself do not share the same position. All thinkers in our world need to learn sciences and mathematics, no doubt about it. So do I and others of my colleagues in Beijing. But the way you are talking about sciences and mathematics reminded me of any an expert’s view of her/his own discipline --- the very word “discipline” should remind you something you need to understand about Foucault’s critiques of power (or abuse of power) by experts --- from whom (those who are en-powered) or how (by a deploma) you get the power to tell a person what he/she can or cannot say?! I quoted from Derrida because I consider his words more convincing than mine about how western languages cannot help us better than our mother language to think. I quoted from Habermas, because I always think his theory of communicative action can be more developed in say the context of China’s social transition, by me or my colleagues. I quoted from any other western thinkers, not because they are westerners, but because their criticisms on their own culture and language just fit my thinking. Philosophy, by the way, is not what you think in your letter, as a discipline. The philosophy as a discipline was ended long time ago, by Heidegger. The philosophy as a way of thinking, however is yet to begin! The last word I’d like to say to you is: don’t even try to think about to use English, German, or French or Italian, or any foreign ideas to tell me or my Chinese colleagues what, and how to do our research in China. This lesson, you shold have long ago learned from a westerner himself at UCLA, Prof. Geertz (“local knowledge”). That’s it, that is about all for now my responses to your critiques. And hopefully, you are not like that narrow-minded Fang Zhouzi, even though you do not understand Heidegger --- for you need to be forced to read his books. Let me guess, if your mind is open enough and if your heart is sensitive enough, soon or later you will be hit by Heidegger. Thus I remain my liberty at corresponding to you with or without your words. Yours, Dingding ◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys1.dyndns.org)(xys888.dyndns.org)◇◇