作為中大校友,支持﹗
【山城士多就 Ztore 創辦人言論之回應】
(Please scroll down for English version)
早前 士多 Ztore 創辦人之一凌俊傑 (Clarence Ling) 在 Facebook 發表支持《逃犯條例》修訂案的言論,除了在社會上引起很大的反響,亦令我們山城士多一眾現任及創辦成員為之側目。雖然事隔一星期,我們還是不得不作出回應。
山城士多於 2015 年 9 月由一班中文大學的同學創辦,開初是為了抗衡中文大學內百佳超級市場的壟斷。我們一直致力推廣本地製造的產品,拉近消費者與生產者的距離,鼓勵良心消費。成立一段時間後,我們喜見支持香港製造的風潮在社會漸漸流行,有關店舖更有如雨後春筍般冒起。作為其中一員,Ztore 將支持香港製造理念商業化,使更多市民可購買本地產品。正因理念一致,我們慢慢開始與 Ztore 合作,讓中大同學透過我們的平台,訂購部分 Ztore 代理的本地產品,而我們亦有提供部分本地社企的產品予 Ztore。一直以來,我們都合作愉快。
可是,Ztore 創辦人之一凌俊傑近日公開發表支持《逃犯條例》修訂案的言論,對充滿理想的示威者冷嘲熱諷,實在令人髮指。其言論亦不禁令人懷疑 Ztore 創立真是為推廣香港製造的理念,抑或只是打著香港製造的旗號謀利。
香港正處於存亡危急之秋。《逃犯條例》修訂案通過定必扼殺香港的未來,更枉論對香港製造行業的深遠影響。一直以來,香港極優良的營商環境都有賴公正、健全的法治制度所保護。《逃犯條例》修訂案通過後將為本港的司法制度打開缺口,使在香港生活及工作的本地和外國人處於被引渡到中國接受不公平審訊的恐懼。此舉將大大打擊外資在港營商的信心。如各大公司撒資,將使本港經濟衰退。
儘管 Ztore 在推廣香港產品曾有所貢獻,我們亦不能接受自己付出的金錢會讓這樣一個人得益。雖然我們微不足道,但我們深信,每一次付款都是一種投票;而我們堅決不會投給 Ztore。
在此,山城士多鄭重宣布,即時終止與 Ztore 的所有合作及來往。
山城士多上下都十分關注近來的抗爭運動。我們對政府仍未回應廣大市民的五大訴求深表遺憾,並強烈譴責警隊使用過分武力鎮壓示威,令眾多香港市民受傷。我們促請政府立即撤回《逃犯條例》修訂案、收回 6 月 12 日示威「暴動」的定性、釋放被補示威者並撤銷他們所有控罪及追究警隊濫用暴力。有關官員亦應立即引咎辭職。
山城士多未來會繼續發展,將我們的理念普及大眾,給各位一個真正的良心選擇。
各位抗爭者請好好保重。山城士多會一直支持你們。
山城士多
2019 年 6 月 23 日
Ztore 創辦人凌俊傑有關言論:https://na.cx/i/7sd9Wda.png
#antielab #反送中 #本地製造 #良心消費 #支持小店 #VoteWithYourDollar
___________________
[A statement by CUStore on the comments by Ztore’s founder]
Ztore’s founder Clarence Ling has recently voiced out his support of the proposed amendment bill to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. His comments not only sparked huge controversy in society but also staggered current and founding members of CUStore. Although it has already been a week since Clarence Ling’s comments were posted, we still feel the urge to make a reply.
CUStore was founded by a group of CUHK students in September 2015 with the hope to break the monopoly of the Parknshop supermarket on our campus. We have been tirelessly working to promote Hong Kong made products and the idea of ethical shopping by drawing consumers closer to the producers. After our foundation, we were delighted that the idea of supporting local products started to become fashionable and that shops selling local products appeared in large numbers. As one of the members in the raising trend, Zstore commercialised the idea of ‘Made in Hong Kong’ so that more people can buy local products easily. Because we had similar aspirations, we started to collaborate with Ztore. We sold some of Ztore’s local products to CUHK students on our platform and provided products from local social enterprises to Ztore. The collaboration was going well.
However, just last week, Ztore’s founder Clarence Ling publicly stated his support to the amendment bill and sneered at the protesters who were full of ideals. His detestable comments made one wonder if his business was really supporting ‘Made in Hong Kong’ or if they were just using the idea solely to make money.
Hong Kong is at a most critical point at the moment. If the amendment bill is passed, the future of Hong Kong will be wrecked. There will be profound effects on the local manufacturing industry. Hong Kong’s excellent business environment has always been safeguarded by the just and sound legal system. The bill will create a fault in our legal system and put local and foreign people living and working in Hong Kong under the fear of being extradited to China where there is non-existence of a fair trial. Foreign companies will have much less confidence to do business in Hong Kong. When capitals leave Hong Kong it will inevitably lead to an economic recession.
Although Ztore has contributed to the promotion of local products, we still cannot accept that the money we pay will fall into such kind of a person like Clarence Ling. We may be insignificant; but we strongly believe that we are casting a vote whenever we pay — and we definitely are not voting for Ztore.
For that reason we hereby announce that we are terminating all the collaboration and ties with Ztore.
All of us from CUStore are very concerned about the recent protests going on in the city. We deeply regret that the government has failed to respond to the demands made by the Hong Kong citizens. We also strongly condemn the use of excessive violence by the Hong Kong Police Force during the protest on 12 June, which left many of our citizens injured. We urge the government to scrap the bill immediately, retract the use of ‘rioting’ in describing the protest on 12 June, release the arrested protesters and remove the charges against them, and investigate on the use of excessive violence by the Hong Kong Police Force. Those relevant government officials should take their responsibilities and resign immediately.
In the future, CUStore will continue to evolve and spread our ideas to the public.
To all those who are fighting for our city out there, please take good care of yourself. We will always support you.
CUStore
23 June 2019
Original comments by Ztore’s Clarence Ling (in Chinese): https://na.cx/i/7sd9Wda.png
at fault中文 在 翻譯這檔事 Facebook 的最佳解答
英文也有「被消失」
針對上一則關於「勘譯功德院」的發文,有位網友私訊表達支持,謝謝。但他說,「disappear 這個只能主動,不能用被動,因此要將was disappeared 改為disappeared才正確。即便是為了符合中文的『被消失』,似乎也不該以英文文法的正確性為代價。」
我的回覆:
抱歉我選擇公開回覆並且未具名引述你的話,因為這是一個切磋學習的機會。針對disappear當成及物動詞,請有興趣的朋友上網查詢這個「近期」的用法,英文中文皆然,我甚至認為,中文的新用法「被消失」很可能是仿自、翻譯自英文的to disappear someone; someone was disappeared。語言不斷演進,disappear做及物動詞,已有一百多年了歷史,好一點的、新一點的大字典已收。台灣的「規範派」(prescriptivist)制式英語學習環境或許還來不及教到這個字義。
例如,知名的American Heritage Dictionary第四版,未列出及物用法。幾年前推出的第五版,收了:
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=disappear
這顯示,好字典必須與時俱進才不被淘汰。另一部著名的美式英語字典,Merriam-Webster,收得更早。
又如,下文指出,disappear的新義,語帶委婉或戲謔的用法,早在1961就有知名英文小說家使用了。
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/111998/disappear-as-a-transitive-verb
// OED shows that disappear has been used as a transitive verb for a surprisingly long time:
3. trans. To cause to disappear.
1897 Chem. News 19 Mar. 143 : We progressively disappear the faces of the dodecahedron.
However its euphemistic use is a bit more recent, and specifically relates to the rule of the Argentine military junta in the late 1970s.
b. trans. euphem. To abduct or arrest (a person), esp. for political reasons, and subsequently to kill or detain as a prisoner, without making his or her fate known.Freq. with reference to Latin America. //
The modern, euphemistic, transitive use can be found many times before the OED's 1979 citation, in Joseph Heller's 1961 novel Catch-22:
She had urgent news about Dunbar.
'They're going to disappear him,' she said.
Yossarian squinted at her uncomprehendingly. 'They're what?' he asked in surprise, and laughed uneasily. 'What does that mean?'
'I don't know. I heard them talking behind a door.'
'Who?'
'I don't know. I couldn't see them. I just heard them say they were going to disappear Dunbar.'
'Why are they going to disappear him?'
'I don't know.'
'It doesn't make sense. It isn't even good grammar. What the hell does it mean when they disappear somebody?'
'I don't know.'
Jesus, you're a great help!'
'Why are you picking on me?' Nurse Duckett protested with hurt feelings, and began sniffing back tears. 'I'm only trying to help. It isn't my fault they're going to disappear him, is it? I shouldn't even be telling you.' //
StackExchange上的這個English Language & Usage論壇,深入紮實而優質,常有說母語且熱衷語言學的人士參與,是個發問、學習道地英語的大寶庫,大力推薦。也有一個較初階,專為英語學習者所設的版本,同樣高品質:
https://ell.stackexchange.com/
#EnglishGrammar
at fault中文 在 貓的成長美股異想世界 Facebook 的最讚貼文
[What I am reading now目前正在看: "Option B" by Sheryl Sandberg]
看這本書, 完全是衝著Mrs. Sandberg(FB的COO)而看的. 這本還沒有中文譯本, 但是如果中文本出來的話, 我非常推薦生命中曾經或是正在經歷不遂順的朋友看看. 裡面有些想法相當地引人深思. 書裡有句話, 我以前就看她提過. 再看一次, 覺得還是寫的很好(我以前也在這邊分享過): When life pulls you under, you can kick against the bottom, break the surface, and breathe again. 她提到的3個P(請見下方)也寫得非常好.
********************
Sheryl Sandberg認為,正是那些艱難的日子決定你成為什麼樣的人,人的價值不單是來自成就,也是在逆境活下去的勇氣。她提到理解心理學中的三個P的迷思能夠幫助我們面人生的失落。
以下摘錄她演講中提到的三個P:Personalization, Pervasiveness, Permanence,
Personalization
“The first P is personalization—the belief that we are at fault. This is different from taking responsibility, which you should always do. This is the lesson that not everything that happens to us happens because of us.”
心理學迷思1:個人化
「第一個P是個人化,以為都是自己的錯。這和負責任是兩回事,負責任指的是你做了該做的事。我們要知道:並不是所有發生在我們身上的事情,都是因我們而起。」
Pervasiveness
“The second P is pervasiveness—the belief that an event will affect all areas of your life. You know that song “Everything is awesome?” This is the flip: “Everything is awful.” There's no place to run nor hide from the all-consuming sadness.”
心理學迷思2:普遍性
「第二個P是普遍性。以為一件事一旦發生,整個人生都搞砸了。記得一首歌 《一切好極了》嗎?這種心情正好相反,叫《一切糟透了》,當人被悲傷消耗殆盡,根本無處可逃。」
(c) Permanence
“The third P is permanence—the belief that the sorrow will last forever. For months, no matter what I did, it felt like the crushing grief would always be there.…Instead, we should accept our feelings—but recognize that they will not last forever.”
心理學迷思3:永久性
「第三個P是永久性,以為傷痛會永遠揮之不去。有好幾個月,無論我做什麼,我還是感到破碎的哀傷走都揮之不去。…我們應該接受自己的感覺,但要知道它們不會永遠都在。」
At the end of the speech, she expected all the Berkeley graduates to trust themselves that they could go through any difficulties. Build resilience in yourselves! When the challenges approach, I hope you (2) bear in mind that only by inner strength can you (3) prevail against life's ups and downs. As the saying goes: we are more vulnerable than we ever thought, but we are stronger than we ever imagined.
演講最後,她期勉柏克萊畢業生,相信自己有能力度過任何難關。在挫折中建立自己的復原力,當挑戰來時,請牢記只有倚靠你內在的力量才能戰勝人生的波折,就如同俗話說的:我們比自己認為的還要脆弱,但我們也比自己想像得還要強大。