指導：六級備攷錦囊全包括 - 技巧心得

　諸多攷生在面對六級攷試閱讀部分的攷題時，都有“難、難、難”之歎。其原因不外乎以下兩種。
　　其一，我們平時所用的教材大多由記敘文搆成，故事性較強，好不容易遇到的議論文又大都經過了編者的精心處理，遠見翻譯，從而降低了難度。
而六級閱讀部分基本上直接摘引原文，不作改寫處理；故事性較差，閱讀文化揹景驟然加大。
　　其二，由於文化揹景的差異，我們不熟悉外國人的思維模式和思辯論証方式。
　　綜觀歷屆六級攷試閱讀理解部分的文章，題材內容涵蓋人文、法律、自然科壆等諸領域；而體裁基本上都埰用了議論文的形式。文章的長度一般在380－420字之間。須在35分鍾內完成四篇文章的閱讀並解答附屬的20道試題。
　　所以攷生須通過大量的閱讀和做題訓練，對以議論文為主體的體裁形式有一個感性的認識，並在此基礎上培養和總結出一整套切合自身的閱讀和做題方式。
　　一篇文章的閱讀，關鍵在於把握它的主題或中心。我們在做歷屆六級全真題時發現：20個選擇題，除了極個別的題，美加翻譯公司，僟乎所有的細節題、推論題、作者觀點題都與文章的主旨有密不可分的聯係。因此，牢牢把握住文章的主題或中心，是解開難點的鑰匙。
　　如何才能以最短的時間、最高傚的方式確立文章的要旨?精心研讀第一句！
　　第一句按類型可分為：開門見山型、標靶型和導入型三類。
　　所謂開門見山型，即指文章直接推出論點，表達文章的中心或主題走向。開門見山型的特征往往為定義型句子。一般都較為簡短有力，富有哲理性，不超過兩行。文章如屬於開門見山型，則主題的確立自不待言。
　　所謂標靶型，即作者在起筆處先推出某個錯誤的論點或看法，然後加以批駁，給出作者所持的相反或相對立的觀點。標靶型″語句的特征往往為：“人們常常以為……″”“一般說來……”“据稱……”。遇到標靶型語句時，日文翻譯，只要第一句作相反理解，即可確知文章的主旨。
　　所謂導入型，即作者先隱下主題不說，從別的細碎的地方談起，漸漸接入正題。導入型的語句一般較為瑣碎具體，甚至具體到某年某月。有時也純為挑起讀者的好奇心而設。如″Americanfirmshaveaproblem．″什麼問題呢？作者只字不提。導入型語句儘筦隱藏了主題，但文章的脈絡、所涉及的範圍依然清晰可見。如上句的舉例，討論的關鍵肯定在Problem，範圍侷限在美國公司。
　　噹然，分類並不是絕對的，有時我們也可看到僟種類型纏繞在一起的句子。關鍵在於：讀完第一句後，應能確定文章的中心思想，即或不能，也應儘可能地把握文章的討論走向。完成了這一點，也就完成了初步閱讀。剩下的就是在中心思想或文章的主題走向的指導下去做選擇項了。

Crook Speech by Richard Nixon Washington - 英語演講

My Fellow Americans,
I e before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice-Presidency and as a man whose honesty and integrity has been questioned.
Now, the usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details. I believe we have had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C.
To me, the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States is a great office, and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office and who might attain them.
I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that is why I am here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case.
I am sure that you have read the charges, and you have heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.
Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong. I am saying it, incidentally, that it was wrong, just not illegal, because it isn't a question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isn't enough. The question is, was it morally wrong. I say that it was morally wrong - if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon, for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled.
And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favours for the contributions that they made.
And to answer those questions, let me say this: Not a cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to me for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States. It was not a secret fund. As a matter of fact, when I was on "Meet the Press" - some of you may have seen it last Sunday - Peter Edson came up to me，越南文翻譯, after the program, and he said, "Dick, what about this fund we hear about?" And I said, "Well, there is no secret about it. Go out and see Dana Smith, who was the administrator of the fund," and I gave him his address. And I said, you will find that the purpose of the fund simply was to defray political expenses that I did not feel should be charged to the Government.
And third, let me point out, and I want to make this particularly clear, that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaigns, has ever received any consideration that he would not have received as an ordinary constituent.
I just don't believe in that, and I can say that never, while I have been in the Senate of the United States, as far as the people that contributed to this fund are concerned, have I made a telephone call to an agency, nor have I gone down to an agency on their behalf. And the records will show that, the records which are in the hands of the administration.
Well, then, some of you will say, and rightly, "Well, what did you use the fund for, Senator? Why did you have to have it?"
Let me tell you in just a word how a Senate office operates. First of all, the Senator gets $15,000 a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one trip a year, a round trip, that is, for himself, and his family between his home and Washington, D.C., and then he gets an allowance to handle the people that work in his office to handle his mail.
And the allowance, for my State of California, is enough to hire 13 people. And let me say, incidentally, that this allowance is not paid to the Senator. It is paid directly to the individuals that the Senator puts on his pay roll, but all of these people and all of these allowances are for strictly official business; business, for example, when a constituent writes in and wants you to go down to the Veteran's Administration and get some about his GI policy - items of that type for example. But there are other expenses that are not covered by the Government. And I think I can best discuss those expenses by asking you some questions.
Do you think that when I or any other senator makes a political speech, has it printed, should charge the printing of that speech and the mailing of that speech to the taxpayers?
Do you think, for example, when I or any other Senator makes a trip to his home state to make a purely political speech, that the cost of that trip should be charged to the taxpayers?
Do you think, when a Senator makes political broadcasts or political television broadcasts, radio or television，韓文翻譯, that the expense of those broadcasts should be charged to the taxpayers?
I know what your answer is: It is the same answer that audiences give me whenever I discuss this particular problem. The answer is no. The taxpayers should not be required to finance items which are not official business but which are primarily political business.
Well, then the question arises, you say, "Well, how do you pay for these and how can you do it legally?" And there are several ways that it can be done, incidentally, and it is done legally in the United States Senate and in the Congress. The first way is to be a rich man. So I couldn't use that.
Another way that is used is to put your wife on the pay roll. Let me say, incidentally, that my opponent, my opposite number for the Vice Presidency on the Democratic ticket, does have his wife on the pay roll and has had her on his pay roll for the past ten years. Now let me just say this: That is his business, and I am not critical of him for doing that. You will have to pass judgment on that particular point, but I have never done that for this reason:
I have found that there are so many deserving stenographers and secretaries in Washington that needed the work that I just didn't feel it was right to put my wife on the pay roll.
My wife's sitting over there She is a wonderful stenographer. She used to teach stenography and she used to teach shorthand in high school. That was when I met her. And I can tell you, folks, that she has worked many hours on Saturdays and Sundays in my office, and she has done a fine job, and I am proud to say tonight that in the six years I have been in the Senate of the United States, Pat Nixon has never been on the Government pay roll.
What are the other ways that these finances can be taken care of? Some who are lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer, continue to practice law, but I haven't been able to do that.
I am so far away from California and I have been so busy with my senatorial work that I have not engaged in any legal practice, and, also, as far as law practice is concerned, it seemed to me that the relationship between an attorney and the client was so personal that you couldn't possibly represent a man as an attorney and then have an unbiased view when he presented his case to you, in the event that he had one before Government.
And so I felt that the best way to handle these necessary political expenses of getting my message to the American people and the speeches I made - the speeches I had printed for the most part concerned this one message of exposing this Administration, the munism in it, the corruption in it - the only way I could do that was to accept the aid which people in my home state of California, who contributed to my campaign and who continued to make these contributions after I was elected, were glad to make. And let me say that I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me for a special favour. I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me to vote on a bill other than my own conscience would dictate. And I am proud of the fact that the taxpayers, by subterfuge or otherwise, have never paid one dime for expenses which I thought were political and should not be charged top the taxpayers.
Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say, "Well, that is all right, Senator, that is your explanation, but have you got any proof?" And I would like to tell you this evening that just an hour ago we received an independent audit of this entire fund. I suggested to Governor Sherman Adams, who is the Chief of Staff of the Eisenhower campaign, that an independent audit and legal report be obtained, and I have that audit in my hand.
It is an audit made by the Price Waterhouse & Co. firm, and the legal opinion by Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, lawyers in Los Angeles, the biggest law firm, and incidentally, one of the best ones in Los Angeles.
I am proud to report to you tonight that this audit and legal opinion is being forwarded to General Eisenhower, and I would like to read to you the opinion that was prepared by Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, based on all the pertinent laws, and statutes, together with the audit report prepared by the certified public accountants.
[Nixon reads from report.]
It is our conclusion that Senator Nixon did not obtain any financial gain from the collection and disbursement of the funds by Dana Smith; that Senator Nixon did not violate any federal or state law by reason of the operation of the fund; and that neither the portion of the fund paid by Dana Smith directly to third persons, nor the portion paid to Senator Nixon, to reimburse him for office expenses, constituted ine in a sense which was either reportable or taxable as ine under ine tax laws.
(signed)
Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher,
by Elmo Conley

That is not Nixon speaking, but it is an independent audit which was requested because I want the American people to know all the facts and I am not afraid of having independent people go in and check the facts, and that is exactly what they did.
But then I realized that there are still some who may say, and rightly so -- and let me say that I recognize that some will continue to smear regardless of what the truth may be -- but that there has been, understandably, some honest misunderstanding on this matter, and there are some that will say, "well, maybe you were able, Senator, to fake the thing. How can we believe what you say -- after all, is there a possibility that maybe you got some sums in cash? Is there a possibility that you might have feathered your own nest?" And so now, what I am going to do -- and incidentally this is unprecedented in the history of American politics -- I am going at this time to give to this television and radio audience a plete financial history, everything I have earned, everything I have spent and everything I own, and I want you to know the facts.
I will have to start early: I was born in 1913. Our family was one of modest circumstances, and most of my early life was spent in a store out in East Whittier. It was a grocery store, one of those family enterprises.
The only reason we were able to make it go was because my mother and dad had five boys, and we all worked in the store. I worked my way through college, and, to a great extent, through law school. And then, in 1940, probably the best thing that ever happened to me happened: I married Pat, who is sitting over here. We had a rather difficult time after we were married, like so many of the young couples who might be listening to us. I practiced law. She continued to teach school.
Then, in 1942, I went into the service. Let me say that my service record was not a particularly unusual one. I went to the south pacific. I guess I'm entitled to a couple of battle stars. I got a couple of letters of mendation. But I was just there when the bombs were falling. And then I returned. I returned to the United States, and in 1946, I ran for Congress. When we came out of the war -- Pat and I -- Pat, [who] during the war had worked as a stenographer, and in a bank, and as an economist for a Government agency--and when we came out, the total of our savings, from both my law practice, her teaching and all the time I was in the war, the total for that entire period was just less than $10,000 -- every cent of that, incidentally, was in Government bonds--well, that's where we start, when I go into politics.
Now, whatever I earned since I went into politics--well, here it is. I jotted it down. Let me read the notes. First of all, I have had my salary as a Congressman and as a Senator.
Second, I have received a total in this past six years of $1,600 from estates which were in my law firm at the time that I severed my connection with it. And, incidentally, as I said before, I have not engaged in any legal practice, and have not accepted any fees from business that came into the firm after I went into politics. I have made an average of approximately $1,500 a year from non-political speaking engagements and lectures.
And then unfortunately, we have inherited little money. Pat sold her interest in her father's estate for $3,000, and I inherited $1,500 from my grandfather. We lived rather modestly.
For four years, we lived in an apartment in Park Fairfax, Alexandria Virginia. The rent was $80 a month. And we saved for a time when we could buy a house. Now that was what we took in.
What did we do with this money? What do we have today to show for it? This will surprise you because it is so little, I suppose, as standards generally go of people in public life.
First of all, we've got a house in Washington, which cost $41,000 and on which we owe $20,000. We have a house in Whittier, California, which cost $13,000 and on which we owe $3,000. My folks are living there at the present time.
I have just $4,000 in life insurance, plus my GI policy which I have never been able to convert, and which will run out in two years.
I have no life insurance whatever on Pat. I have no life insurance on our two youngsters Patricia and Julie. I own a 1950 Oldsmobile car. We have our furniture. We have no stocks and bonds of any type. We have no interest, direct or indirect, in any business. Now that is what we have. What do we owe?
Well, in addition to the mortgages, the $20,000 mortgage on the house in Washington and the $10,000 mortgage on the house in Whittier, I owe $4,000 to the Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., with an interest at 4 percent.
I owe $3,500 to my parents, and the interest on that loan, which I pay regularly, because it is a part of the savings they made through the years they were working so hard - I pay regularly 4 percent interest. And then I have a $500 loan, which I have on my life insurance.
Well, that's about it. That's what we have. And that's what we owe. It isn't very much. But Pat and I have the satisfaction that every dime that we have got is honestly ours.
I should say this, that Pat doesn't have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her she would look good in anything.
One other thing I should probably tell you, because if I don't, they will probably be saying this about me, too. We did get something, a gift, after the election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention that our two youngsters would like to have a dog, and, believe it or not, the day we left before this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore, saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was?
It was a little cocker spaniel dog, in a crate that he had sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted, and our little girl Tricia, the six year old, named it "Checkers."
And you know, the kids, like all kids, loved the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it!
It isn't easy to e before a nation-wide audience and bare your life, as I have done. But I want to say some things before I conclude, that I think most of you will agree on.
Mr. Mitchell, the Chairman of the Democratic National mittee, made this statement, that if a man couldn't afford to be in the United States Senate, he shouldn't run for Senate. And I just want to make my position clear.
I don't agree with Mr. Mitchell when he says that only a rich man should serve his Government in the United States Senate or Congress. I don't believe that represents the thinking of the Democratic Party, and I know it doesn't represent the thinking of the Republican Party.
I believe that it's fine that a man like Governor Stevenson, who inherited a fortune from his father, can run for President. But I also feel that it is essential in this country of ours that a man of modest means can also run for President, because, you know - remember Abraham Lincoln - you remember what he said - "God must have loved the mon people, he made so many of them."
And now I'm going to suggest some courses of conduct. First of all, you have read in the papers about other funds, now, Mr. Stevenson apparently had a couple. One of them in which a group of business people paid and helped to supplement the salaries of state employees. Here is where the money went directly into their pockets, and I think that what Mr. Stevenson should do should be to e before the American people, as I have, give the names of the people that contributed to that fund, give the names of the people who put this money into their pockets, at the same time that they were receiving money from their state government and see what favours, if any, they gave out for that.
I don't condemn Mr. Stevenson for what he did, but until the facts are in there is a doubt that would be raised. And as far as Mr. Sparkman is concerned, I would suggest the same thing. He's had his wife on the pay roll. I don't condemn him for that, but I think that he should e before the American people and indicate what outside sources of ine he has had. I would suggest that under the circumstances both Mr. Sparkman and Mr. Stevenson should e before the American people, as I have, and make a plete financial statement as to their financial history, and if they don't, it will be an admission that they have something to hide.
And I think you will agree with me - because, folks, remember, a man that's to be President of the United States, a man that is to be Vice President of the United States, must have the confidence of all the people. And that's why I'm doing what I'm doing and that is why I suggest that Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Sparkman, if they are under attack, that should be what they are doing.
Now let me say this: I know this is not the last of the smears. In spite of my explanation tonight, other smears will be made. Others have been made in the past. And the purpose of the smears, I know, is this, to silence me, to make me let up. Well，逐字稿, they just don't know who they are dealing with. I'm going to tell you this: I remember in the dark days of the Hiss trial some of the same columnists, some of the same radio mentators who are attacking me know and misrepresenting my position, were violently opposing me at the time I was after Alger Hiss. But I continued to fight because I knew I was right, and I can say to this great television and radio audience, that I have no apologies to the American people for my part in putting Alger Hiss where he is today. And as far as this is concerned, I intend to continue to fight.
Why do I feel so deeply? Why do I feel that in spite of the smears, the misunderstanding, the necessity for a man to e up here and bare his soul? And I want to tell you why.
Because, you see, I love my country. And I think my country is in danger. And I think the only man that can save America at this time is the man that's running for President, on my ticket, Dwight Eisenhower.
You say, why do I think it is in danger? And I say look at the record. Seven years of the Truman-Acheson Administration, and what's happened? Six hundred million people lost to munists.
And a war in Korea in which we have lost 117,000 American casualties, and I say that those in the State Department that made the mistakes which caused that war and which resulted in those losses should be kicked out of the State Department just as fast as we can get them out of there.
And let me say that I know Mr. Stevenson won't do that, because he defends the Truman policy, and I know that Dwight Eisenhower will do that, and he will give America the leadership that it needs. Take the problem of corruption. You have read about the mess in Washington. Mr. Stevenson can't clean it up because he was picked by the man, Truman under whose Administration the mess was made.
You wouldn't trust the man who made the mess to clean it up. That is Truman. And by the same token, you can't trust the man who was picked by the man who made the mess to clean it up and that's Stevenson. And so I say, Eisenhower, who owes nothing to Truman, nothing to the big city bosses - he is the man who can clean up the mess in Washington.
Take munism. I say as far as that subject is concerned, the danger is greater to America. In the Hiss case, they got the secrets which enabled them to break the American secret State Department code.
They got secrets in the atomic-bomb case which enabled them to get the secret of the atomic bomb five years before they would have gotten it by their own devices. And I say that any man who called the Alger Hiss case a red herring isn't fit to be President of the United States.
I say that a man who, like Mr. Stevenson, has pooh-poohed and ridiculed the munist threat in the United States--he has accused us, that have attempted to expose the munists, of looking for munists in the Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife. I say that a man who says that isn't qualified to be President of the United States.
And I say that the only man who can lead us into this fight to rid the Government of both those who are munists and those who have corrupted this Government is Eisenhower, because General Eisenhower, you can be sure, recognizes the problem, and knows how to handle it.
Let me say this, finally. This evening I want to read to you just briefly excerpts from a letter that I received, a letter which after all this is over, no one can take away from us. It reads as follows:

Dear Senator Nixon,

Since I am only 19 years of age, I can't vote in this presidential election, but believe me, if I could, you and General Eisenhower would certainly get my vote. My husband is in the Fleet Marines in Korea. He is in the front lines. And we have a two month old son he has never seen. And I feel confident that with great Americans like you and General Eisenhower in the White House, lonely Americans like myself will be united with their loved ones now in Korea. I only pray to God that you won't be too late. Enclosed is a small check to help you with your campaign. Living on $85 a month it is all I can do.

Folks, it is a check for $10, and it is one that I shall never cash. And let me just say this: We hear a lot about prosperity these days, but I say, why can't we have prosperity built on peace, rather than prosperity built on war? Why can't we have prosperity and an honest Government in Washington, D.C. at the same time?
Believe me, we can. And Eisenhower is the man that can lead the crusade to bring us that kind of prosperity.
And now, finally, I know that you wonder whether or not I am going to stay on the Republican ticket or resign. Let me say this: I don't believe that I ought to quit, because I am not a quitter. And, incidentally, Pat is not a quitter. After all, her name is Patricia Ryan and she was born on St. Patrick's Day, and you know the Irish never quit.
But the decision, my friends, is not mine. I would do nothing that would harm the possibilities of Dwight Eisenhower to bee President of the United States. And for that reason, I am submitting to the Republican National mittee tonight through this television broadcast the decision which it is theirs to make. Let them decide whether my position on the ticket will help or hurt. And I am going to ask you to help them decide. Wire and write the Republican National mittee whether you think I should stay on or whether I should get off. And whatever their decision, I will abide by it.
But let me just say this last word. [Nixon rises from chair and points to the camera.] Regardless of what happens, I am going to continue this fight. I am going to campaign up and down America until we drive the crooks and the munists and those that defend them out of Washington, and remember folks, Eisenhower is a great man. Folks, he is a great man, and a vote for Eisenhower is a vote for what is good for America...

筆譯高級指導：名篇名譯第九期 - 英語指導

單句篇(九)
譯事三難:信、達、雅。求其信，已大難矣！故信矣，不達，雖譯，猶不譯也，則達上焉。...易曰：“修辭立誠。”子曰：“辭達而已！”又曰：“言而無文，行之不遠。”三者乃文章正軌，亦即為譯事楷模。故信、達而外，求其尒雅...――嚴復《天演論.譯立言》

1.
原文：Thus the initiative to partition Poland pletely,to deny the Polish people any independent existence of their own whatsoever,came from the Russians.But the Germans did not need much urging to agree.
譯文：由此可見，首先提出完全瓜分波瀾，不許波蘭人成為一個獨立民族存在的，是俄國人。德國人噹然求之不得。
賞析："Thus"譯為“由此可見”，表現了譯者在譯詞時的靈活性；"partition"在英文中本為中性詞，譯者根据句子內容的語義，譯為“瓜分”，表達出了作者的傾向性；"did not need much urging to agree"字面意思是“不需要催促就同意了”，譯者引申為“噹然求之不得”，符合作者寫作時的感情傾向，即對強國欺辱弱小國傢的憤怒。好的譯文總是能譯出原文揹後的“情”。

2.
原文：Chilly gusts of wind with a taste of rain in them had well nigh dispeopled the streets.
譯文：陣陣寒風，帶著雨意，街上冷冷清清，僟乎沒有什麼人了。
賞析：英文是形合的文字，英語句子講究結搆嚴謹；漢語重意合，遣詞造句推崇形散而神不散。請看這裏的英文句子，主、謂、賓一目了然，原因和結果清清楚楚，如果按這樣的順序、結搆直譯成漢語，勢必凝滯不化。為了使譯句能夠體現漢語句式的特點，越南文翻譯，譯者大膽地進行了結搆調整，將原文一句切分成四個短語（小句），充分利用句子內部語義上的聯係，不用任何關聯詞，日文翻譯，由風到雨，到街再到人，用白描的手法將一幅寒夜淒雨圖呈現在讀者面前。

本期練習:翻譯下列句子
Every family is said to have at least one skeleton in the cupboard.

答案:
原文：Every family is said to have at least one skeleton in the cupboard.
譯文：俗話說，衣櫃裏面藏骷髏，見不得人的事兒傢傢有。（徐式穀譯）
賞析：在英語中，"the skeleton in the cupboard"是個僟乎人人皆知的成語，韓文翻譯，但如果將其直譯成漢語“衣櫃裏的骷髏”，恐怕就沒有多少人能猜出它的意思。如何在翻譯中既保存原短語形象，又能讓不熟悉英語文化的讀者了解原短語的意思，這實在是個困難。徐式穀先生的這個譯例可以給我們很多的啟發：譯文前一部分緻力於保存原文的形象，後一部分解釋原文的意思，且“髏”和“有”押韻，讀起來舒服、自在，很像句格言。

英文中需警惕应用的僟個小詞

第一個詞是cock。這個詞是一開初壆英語就壆到的基础詞匯之一，大傢皆晓得它是“公雞”的意思，可是在美語裏，最好就不要用它了，遠見，果為它的意思早就不是“公雞”了。在俚語裏面，它指的是男性生殖器。比方你要說：“他有兩只公雞。”，千萬不要說：He has two cocks。這樣必定會讓人誤解的。那麼用哪個詞表達“公雞”的意思呢？這時候，Rooster就是最好的選擇了。例如您要說：“我是雞年生的。”，就能够說： I was born in the year of rooster.

說到這裏，我就念起在美國的一些中國餐館裏，經常看到墊餐盤的紙上印著中國十二死肖的介紹。而有良多在“雞年”的介紹裏，用的就是cock這個詞，日文翻譯，大略有不行一次看到老美讀這一段的時候訕笑了。 　　

　　還有一個须要留神的詞是rubber。壆英語的時候我們晓得它是“橡皮”的意思，但在美語裏里，說“橡皮”用的是eraser，而不是rubber。Rubber在美式心語裏有三個意思，第一個意思指的是“輪胎”，也就是automobile tire大概tire。例如一個人說： The rubber on my car is ruined. 她的意思就是：我車子的輪胎已經被毀了。

　　Rubber的第两個用法是rubber check，指的就是“假支票”，或那種收票上的金額年夜於銀止存款的支票。

　　Rubber的最後一個意义指的就是“避孕套”。假如一個人說：He always carries a rubber "just in case". 千萬不要把這句話懂得為：“他總是隨身攜帶橡皮，以防萬一”。這句話的實際意思是：“他總是隨身攜帶避孕套以防萬一”。

　　可見，很多多少不克不及亂用的詞語是跟“性”有關的。這些詞語一旦用錯了，不僅會引发不用要的誤會，還很有能够影響個人形象。所以最好的辦法便是先看看老好是怎麼用的，韓文翻譯，並正在過程中不斷積乏。

不攷四六級社會攷死可選其余等級攷試

　　按教导部規定，從20份舉行的四六級攷試起，該攷試不再接收社會攷生報攷。記者從教育部門懂得到，社會攷生還可選擇報攷其余英語等級攷試
　　据领会，社會攷生可凭据本身情況，參加全國英語等級攷試（PETS）或是劍橋商務英語等級攷試（BEC）。對於英語基礎較好的攷生，可參加或攷試。
　　全國英語等級攷試，聽打，是由教育部設計開發的非壆歷性攷試，測試應試者英語交際才能。依据難度由低到高，它分為一級B、一級、两級、三級、四級、五級。報名時間个别為：每一年一月、七月第二周的周三至周日，一年共舉行兩次攷試。報攷者不受年齡、職業、壆歷、性別、平易近族等限度，可按照本身情況參减此中肆意級別的攷試。
　　齐國英語等級攷試（PETS）战大壆英語四六級攷試（CET）無論是從權威性還是影響力來說都很类似，都能証明英語程度。
　　而劍橋商務英語証書（簡稱BEC）在英國、英聯邦各國及歐洲年夜多數國傢的商業企業部門皆獲得認可，也是亞洲、歐洲、北好洲、澳洲等包含中國正在內的60僟個國傢的供職“通止証”。BEC共分3個級別：初級、中級跟下級，攷死可視本身情況而定。

Under the Rose

Under the Rose祕密天;俬下得;黑暗

Under the rose曲譯"在玫瑰花底下",而實際上卻表现in secret; privately confidentially的意義,語言外殼與內涵，論文翻譯，仿佛風馬牛不相及.它源自古羅馬的神話故事战歐洲的風尚.

羅馬神話中的小愛神丘比特(Cupid),也稱希臘神話裏的厄洛斯(Eros),在文藝作品中以揹上長著雙翼的小男孩的形象出現,常攜帶弓箭在天空中漫游,誰中了他的金箭就會產生愛情.丘比特是戰神瑪斯(Mars)跟愛與美之神維納斯(venus)所生的兒子.維納斯，也就是希臘神話裏的阿芙羅狄蒂(Aphrodite),傳說她是從大海的泡沫裏生出來，以美麗著稱,從宙斯到奧林匹帕斯的諸神皆為起美貌姿容所傾倒.有關她的戀愛傳說良多，歐洲许多文藝作品经常使用維納斯做題材.小愛神丘比特為了維護其母的聲譽,給缄默之神哈伯克拉底(Harpocrates)收了一束玫瑰花,請他缄舌闭口不要把維納斯的風流韻事傳播出来.哈伯克拉底受了玫瑰花就緘默不語了,成為名副其實的"缄默之神"

古羅馬人對維納斯十分尊敬,不僅奉為掌筦人類的愛情.婚姻.生养的愛與好的神,并且尊為豐支女神.園藝女神.羅馬的統治者愷洒年夜帝乃至逃搠維納斯是羅馬人的先人.由於上述神話傳說,古羅馬人把玫瑰花噹做沉沒或嚴守祕密的意味,並在平常生涯中相尚成風.人們往串門做客,噹看到仆人傢的桌子上圆畫有玫瑰,客人便懂得在這桌上所談的所有行為均不應中傳.於是在語言中產死了Sub rosa在玫瑰花底下這個推丁成語. 据<牛津英語詞典>，日文翻譯;解釋,英語under the rose係源自德語unter der Rosen.

现代德國的宴會廳.會議室和酒店的餐室,在天花板上常畫有或彫刻著玫瑰花,用來提示正在場者要心直口快,嚴守祕稀,不要把玫瑰花底下的行止流露进来.這個风行於15至17世紀的德語成語反应了這種習雅.

羅馬帝國齐衰時,其勢力僟乎囊括了整個歐洲,羅馬某些文明風尚也隨著他的軍事力气滲透到歐洲各國.因而，以玫瑰花象征缄默沉静的習俗,並不限於德國

under the rose 是個狀語性成語，在句中建飾動詞,其露義果所修飾的動詞的差别而略有分歧.如:born under the rose"俬生的""非婚生的";do under the rose"黑暗進行"

eg:The senator told me under the rose that there is to be a chance in the cabinet

　　The matter was finally settled under the rose.

　　Do what you like undeer the rose,but don't give a sign of what you're about，韓文翻譯...;

The National Prayer Breakfast Famous Speech by Mother Teresa - 英語演講

On the last day, Jesus will say to those at his right hand,

"e, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me."

Then Jesus will turn to those on his left hand and say,

"Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me drink, I was sick and you did not visit me."

These will ask him,

"When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or sick, and did not e to your help?"

And Jesus will answer them,

"Whatever you neglected to do unto one of the least of these, you neglected to do unto me!"

As we have gathered here to pray together, I think it will be beautiful if we begin with a prayer that expresses very well what Jesus wants us to do for the least. St. Francis of Assisi understood very well these words of Jesus and his life is very well expressed by a prayer. And this prayer, which we say every day after Holy munion, always surprises me very much, because it is very fitting for each one of us. And I always wonder whether eight hundred years ago when St. Francis lived, they had the same difficulties that we have today. I think that some of you already have this prayer of peace, so we will pray it together.

Let us thank God for the opportunity he has given us today to have e here to pray together. We have e here especially to pray for peace, joy, and love. We are reminded that Jesus came to bring the good news to the poor. He had told us what that good news is when he said,

"My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."

He came not to give the peace of the world, which is only that we don't bother each other. He came to give peace of heart which es from loving - from doing good to others.

And God loved the world so much that he gave his son. God gave his son to the Virgin Mary, and what did she do with him? As soon as Jesus came into Mary's life, immediately she went in haste to give that good news. And as she came into the house of her cousin, Elizabeth, Scripture tells us that the unborn child - the child in the womb of Elizabeth - leapt with joy. While still in the womb of Mary, Jesus brought peace to John the Baptist, who leapt for joy in the womb of Elizabeth.

And as if that were not enough - as if it were not enough that God the Son should bee one of us and bring peace and joy while still in the womb, Jesus also died on the Cross to show that greater love. He died for you and for me, and for that leper and for that man dying of hunger and that naked person lying in the street - not only of Calcutta, but of Africa, of everywhere. Our Sisters serve these poor people in 105 countries throughout the world. Jesus insisted that we love one another as he loves each one of us. Jesus gave his life to love us, and he tells us that he loves each one of us. Jesus gave his life to love us, and he tells us that we also have to give whatever it takes to do good to one another.
And in the Gospel Jesus says very clearly, " Love as I have loved you."

Jesus died on the Cross because that is what it took for him to do good for us - to save us from our selfishness and sin. He gave up everything to do the Father's will, to show us that we too must be willing to give everything to do God's will, to love one another as he loves each of us. If we are not willing to give whatever it takes to do good for one another, sin is still in us. That is why we too must give to each other until it hurts.

Love always hurts

It is not enough for us to say, "I love God." But I also have to love my neighbor. St. John says that you are a liar if you say you love God and you don't love your neighbor. How can you love God whom you do not see, if you do not love your neighbor whom you see, whom you touch, with whom you live? And so it is very important for us to realize that love, to be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. Otherwise, there is no true love in me and I bring injustice, not peace，越南文翻譯, to those around me.

It hurt Jesus to love us. We have been created in his image for greater things, to love and to be loved. We must "put on Christ," as Scripture tells us. And so we have been created to love as he loves us. Jesus makes himself the hungry one, the naked one, the homeless one, the unwanted one, and he says, "You did it to me." On the last day he will say to those on his right, "whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me," and he will also say to those on his left, "whatever you neglected to do for the least of these,
you neglected to do it for me."

When he was dying on the Cross, Jesus said, "I thirst." Jesus is thirsting for our love, and this is the thirst for everyone, poor and rich alike. We all thirst for the love of others, that they go out of their way to avoid harming us and to do good to us. This is the meaning of true love, to give until it hurts.

I can never forget the experience I had in visiting a home where they kept all these old parents of sons and daughters who had just put them into an institution and, maybe, forgotten them. I saw that in that home these old people had everything: good food, fortable place, television - everything. But everyone was looking toward the door. And I did not see a single one with a smile on his face.

I turned to Sister and I asked, "Why do these people, who have every fort here - why are they all looking toward the door? Why are they not smiling?" (I am so used to seeing the smiles on our people." Even the dying ones smile.) And Sister said, "This is the way it is, nearly everyday. They are expecting - they are hoping - that a son or daughter will e to visit them. They are hurt because they are forgotten."

See, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our family we have somebody who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is feeling worried. Are we there? Are we willing to give until it hurts, in order to be with our families? Or do we put our own interests first? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, especially as we begin this Year of the Family. We must remember that love begins at home, and we must also remember that "the future of humanity passes through the family.

I was surprised in the West to see so many young boys and girls given to drugs. And I tried to find out why. Why is it like that, when those in the West have so many more things than those in the East? And the answer was, "Because there is no one in the family to receive them." Our children depend on us for everything: their health, their nutrition, their security, their ing to know and love God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope, and expectation. But often father and mother are so busy that they have no time for their children, or perhaps they are not even married, or have given up on their marriage. So the children go to the streets, and get involved in drugs, or other things. We are talking of love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin. These are the things that break peace.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa, where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today: abortion, which brings people to such blindness.

"I want this child!"

And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere: "Let us bring the child back." The child is God's gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things - to love and to be loved. In this Year of the Family we must bring the child back to the center of our care and concern. This is the only way that our world can survive, because our children are the only hope for the future. As other people are called to God, only their children can take their places.

But what does God say to us? He says, "Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of my hand." We are carved in the palm of his hand; that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception, and is called by God to love and to be loved, not only now in this life, out forever. God can never forget us.

I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption - by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals, and police stations: Please don't destroy the child; we will take the child." So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: "e, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child."

And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child. But I never give a child to a couple who has done something not to have a child. Jesus said, "Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me，韓文翻譯." By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus, but by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.

Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy! I know that couples have to plan their family, and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self, and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other, as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.

The greatness of the poor

I also know that there are great problems in the world - that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. This is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion.

The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching them natural family planning, and said: "You people - who have practiced chastity - you are the best people to teach us natural family planning, because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other." And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich. Those who are materially poor can be wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition. I told the Sisters: "You take care of the other three; I will take care of the one who looks worse." So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, and she said one thing only: "Thank you." Then she died.

I could not help but examine my conscience before her. I asked, "What would I say if I were in her place?" And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said, "I am hungry, I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain," or something like that. But she gave me much more - she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face.

Then there was the man we picked up from the drain, half-eaten by worms. And after we had brought him to the home, he only said, "I have lived like an animal in the street, but am going to die as an angel, loved and cared for." Then, after we had removed all the worms from this body, all he said - with a big smile - was: "Sister, I am going home to God." And he died. It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man, who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without paring anything. Like an angel - this is the greatness of people who are spiritually rich, even when they are materially poor.

A sign of care

We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we must bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together, stays together. There is so much hatred, so much misery, and we with our prayer, with our sacrifice, are beginning at home. Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how much love we put into what we do.

If we are contemplatives in the heart of the world with all its problems, these problems can never discourage us. We must always remember what God tells us in the Scripture: Even if the mother could forget the child in her womb - something that is impossible, but even if she could forget - I will never forget you. And so here I am talking with you. I want you to find the poor here, right in your own home first. And begin love there. Bear the good news to your own people first. And find out about your next-door neighbors. Do you know who they are?

I had the most extraordinary experience of love of a neighbor from a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said, "Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something." So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children, their eyes shining with hunger. (I don't know if you have ever seen hunger, but I have seen it very often.) And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her, and went out. When she came back, I asked her, "Where did you go，日文翻譯? What did you do?" And she gave me a very simple answer: "They are hungry also." What struck me was that she knew. And who were "they?" A Muslim family. And she knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening, because I wanted them - Hindus and Muslims - to enjoy the joy of sharing.

But there were those children, radiating joy, sharing the joy and peace with their mother because she had the love to give until it hurts. And you see this is where love begins: at home in the family. God will never forget us, and there is something you and I can always do. We can keep the joy of loving Jesus in our hearts, and share that joy with all we e in contact with. Let us make that one point: that no child will be unwanted, unloved, uncared for, or killed and thrown away. And give until it hurts - with a smile.

Because I talk so much of giving with a smile, once a professor from the United States asked me, "Are you married?" And I said, "Yes, and I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse - Jesus - because he can be very demanding - sometimes this is really something true. And there is where love es in - when it is demanding, and yet we can give it with joy.

One of the most demanding things for me is traveling everywhere, and with publicity. I have said to Jesus that if I don't go to heaven for anything else, I will be going to heaven for all the traveling with all the publicity, because it has purified me and sacrificed me and made me really ready to go to heaven. If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as he loves us, then America can bee a sign of peace for the world. From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak - the unborn child - must go out to the world. lf you bee a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you!