作者tucson (tucson)
看板Translation
標題Re: [英中] 這句話中的follow up 有點怪
時間Mon Oct 8 14:05:32 2012
有關implication 的問題 我查看了一下英英字典
發現implication 原翻譯應該並無大礙 但也許可以修改一下
理由如下:
OALD: implication
3 [UNCOUNTABLE] implication (of somebody) (in something) the fact of being
involved, or of involving somebody, in something, especially a crime
Synonym: INVOLVEMENT
He resigned after his implication in a sex scandal.
LDOCE:
2 [uncountable] a situation in which it is shown or suggested that someone
or something is involved in a crime or a dishonest act [--> implicate]
the implication of somebody (in something)
the implication of the former Chief of Staff in a major scandal
Reverso (Collins):
implicate
( implicates 3rd person present) ( implicating present participle)
( implicated past tense & past participle )
To implicate someone means to show or claim that they were involved in
something wrong or criminal. verb
He was obliged to resign when one of his own aides was implicated in a
financial scandal... V n in n
He didn't find anything in the notebooks to implicate Stu. V n
→ implicated
--> implication n-uncount
...his implication in a murder.
由以上三個字典所寫的 implicate / implication 指的應該是參與或涉入/涉及某個
犯罪行為的事實,
原翻譯:
如果有涉及到任何的董事參與的話，
應該沒有太大的問題
但如果翻成:
如果有任何的董事參與的實質事實的話，
可能就比較清楚一點.
不知道這樣的解釋大家以為如何? 是否有哪裡不妥? 請指教。
因此我試翻:
如果有任何董事涉入的事實的話，我們就需要立即仔細地展開調查。
※ 引述《tucson (tucson)》之銘言：
: If there is any implication of the director's involvement, we need to
: follow up swiftly and thoroughly.
: 如果有涉及到任何的董事參與的話，我們就需要立刻並仔細地追蹤。
: 這句話中的follow up 翻成"追蹤" 感覺有點怪。
: 請問各位follow up此處是不是有更好的翻法?
: 我個人覺得翻成"追查" 可能比較好, 各位覺得呢?
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 219.85.94.148
1F：推 luciferii:事實....嗎?......真的變 Eng-class版了 10/08 14:22
2F：→ tucson:事實是你 沒有 "查" 字典 10/08 14:55
3F：推 pentimento:這篇 L 大說得有理。逃。 10/08 15:27
4F：→ l10nel:避免將 implicate/implication 和「事實」劃上等號。 10/08 16:19
5F：→ l10nel:「事實」太強烈了，雖然的確有兩部學習型詞典用了fact這字, 10/08 16:20
6F：→ l10nel:其他一般詞典多用the act/state of being implicated來解釋 10/08 16:23
7F：→ l10nel:implication。至於implicate也只show/suggest connection/ 10/08 16:25
8F：→ l10nel:involvement，多查幾本詞典還是有用的，尤其在有疑問時， 10/08 16:26
9F：→ l10nel:跳出學習型詞典，可以得到較精確的定義。 10/08 16:27
10F：→ usread:"有涉及","involvement of A's involvemnt",都是很差的文字 10/08 16:59
11F：→ usread:翻譯覺得"怪怪",第一要務是檢視自己的"理解" 10/08 17:10
12F：推 spacedunce5:順便推薦板囑我偏愛的字典 dictionary.com 10/08 22:10
13F：→ tucson:改翻成"若有證據顯示有董事的介入的話,...." 這樣如何? 10/09 05:25
14F：推 luciferii:原文未提到證據，屬於過譯。 10/10 00:45
15F：推 kage01:跡象? 10/11 01:07