關於 go astray中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】

***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated，將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像：以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文（https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/）翻譯成英文，鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演，在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***

中文精簡版本：https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/

Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.

In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.

The possibility of realizing legislative majority

Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.

The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?

Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.

Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.

Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority

To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.

While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.

Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.

Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.

Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP

What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.

Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.

The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.

Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution

Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.

Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.

The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.

All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.

https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw

誤譯的終結？不如等世界末日來臨
——《信仰的終結》翻譯初窺

趁時事正熱打個比方：終結不了的翻譯問題，跟宗教為人世帶來的種種災禍一樣，不可能完全根除。

彷彿語言的誤解和誤譯本身，已趕在被台灣宗教財團收攏的不肖政客通過「宗教基本法」之前，悄悄成立了宗教——The Universal Church of Miscomprehension and Mistranslation——以防人心發展出理性思考去加以干涉、甚至「迫害」。

酸話說完了。有機會，還是儘量把語言可經由理性解讀的真相呈現出來。

以下以【……】標出知名無神論者Sam Harris精彩可期的
著作The End of Faith的部分翻譯問題。

統計資料供參：

中譯是博客來上可讀到的4小頁內容，對應原文約1700字，大約每67原文字出現一個我認爲需要改正的理解與翻譯問題。原文書估計11萬6千字，在如此微小的樣本下，粗估整部中譯會有超過1700個這種語言問題。

除了以這種貌似較爲客觀、科學的計數法來判斷翻譯是否合格、過關以外，其實我認爲另一種較人性、直觀、「不科學」的方式：從「會犯哪種錯」、「該不該犯那種錯」這種「微小」地方，來得到對某譯者的整體觀感，至少是同等重要的，有時候這種「見微知著」法所揭露的事更多、更大、更不堪。

暫不一一討論問題的細節、甚至替出版社和譯者提供新的翻譯了，太費時。有興趣的人可以自行研究。問題當中肯定有的很明顯，有的較隱晦。如果你不認爲某一點有什麼問題值得大驚小怪，歡迎指出討論。也許這不失爲一種更積極的理解英語、斟酌中文、激盪思考的方法。我希望把時間花在刀口上。

====================================
書名：The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
信仰的終結：宗教、恐怖行動及理性的未來
作者： Sam Harris
譯者： 孔繁鐘
出版社：八旗文化
出版日期：2015/12/30

作者簡介　山姆．哈里斯（Sam Harris）

美國著名作家、哲學家、神經科學家。著有《紐約時報》暢銷書《信仰的終結》（The End of Faith，美國筆會2005年非小說類得獎著作）、《給基督教國度的一封信》（Letter to a Christian Nation），以及《道德風景》(The Moral Landscape)。他的作品以超過十五種語言出版。文章曾刊於《新聞周刊》、《紐約時報》、《洛杉磯時報》、《泰晤士報》（倫敦）、《波士頓環球報》、《大西洋月刊》、《神經學年鑑》、《外交政策》及其他許多刊物。為理智工程(Project Reason)的共同創始人與董事長，該非營利組織致力於傳播科學知識和社會中世俗價值。

史丹佛大學哲學學士。他研究東方及西方的宗教傳統以及各種靈性教派已二十年。2009年取得神經科學博士學位，研究主題為相信、不相信、及不確定的神經學基礎。請造訪他的網頁 www . smaharris . org.

譯者簡介　 孔繁鐘

衛生署玉里醫院精神科主治醫師，台大化工所畢業後考上台大醫學院學士後醫學系。為孔子第七十四代後裔，因花東地區醫療資源較缺乏，與弟弟孔繁錦長期投入當地的精神醫療，照顧病情嚴重的精神病患，並翻譯多本國內精神醫學與心理學教科書。身為精神科醫師，他相信精神醫學得本執在於人性的幫助關係，而非統計分類；因此不把自己視為一個開藥者，也定義自己為為一個充滿同理心的助人者。

================================

翻譯問題列表（依內容順序）：

The young man takes his seat beside a middle-aged couple. He will wait for the bus to reach its next stop. The couple at his side 【appears to be shopping for a new refrigerator】. The woman has decided on a model, but her husband worries that it will be too expensive. He indicates another one in a brochure that lies open on her lap.
年輕男子靠著一對中年夫婦坐下。他耐心等著公車到下一站。這對夫婦【似乎正要去買新冰箱】。妻子膝蓋上攤著一份冰箱型錄，她已經選定了要買的機型，但是丈夫嫌太貴，指著另一種機型絮絮說著。

The next stop comes into view. 【The bus doors swing】.
下一站已近在眼前。【公車搖晃著】。

The nails, ball bearings, and rat poison 【ensure further casualties on the street and in the surrounding cars.】
釘子、小鋼球和毒老鼠藥【發揮了最大的殺傷力，也造成街道上和四周車輛中其他人員大量】傷亡。

These are 【the facts】. This is all we know for certain about the young man.
這些都是【真人實事】。關於這位年輕男子我們確實知道的所有實情都在這裡了。

A BELIEF is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person’s life. Are you a scientist? A liberal? A racist? These are merely species of 【belief in action】.
信仰是一種控制桿，一旦拉動就能操縱人們生活中幾乎所有層面的每件事。你是個科學家嗎？自由主義者？種族主義者？這些不過是【依據信仰促發的行動】而做的分類罷了。

It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because 【it was written in the stars】 but because it was written in our books; 【it is what we do with words like “God” and “paradise” and “sin” in the present】 that will determine our future.
看來若人類終將經由戰爭而自我滅絕，也絕不是因為這些想法【被寫在星空中】，而是因為它被寫在某些書籍裡；【正是我們現在所看到使用「上帝」、「天堂」與「罪惡」這些字眼的那些書籍】，決定了人類的未來。

【People tend to organize themselves into factions according to which of these incompatible claims they accept】—rather than on the basis of language, skin color, location of birth, or any other criterion of tribalism.
這些書籍的主張互不相容，而【人們傾向於把接受相同主張的人歸於同一宗派】，而非依據語言、膚色、出生地、或任何其他區分部落意識的標準。

All are 【in perverse agreement】 on one point of fundamental importance, however: “respect” for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses.
所有這些書籍都【極力堅持】一項重要基本論點：上帝絕不贊同「尊重其他信仰或不相信者的觀點」這種態度。

【While all faiths have been touched, here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism,】 the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to 【every creed】. Once a person believes—really believes—that certain ideas can lead to eternal happiness, or to its antithesis, he cannot tolerate the possibility that the people he loves might be led astray by the blandishments of unbelievers. Certainty about the next life is 【simply incompatible with tolerance in this one.】
【各處各地所有的信仰都浸潤著「真神唯一」的精神】，每個宗教的傳統核心教義都是：所有其他宗教的組成都是錯誤，若非全錯，至少也是不完全且危險的。不包容正是【所有教條】的本質。某個人一旦真心相信了某種想法能導致永恆幸福或永遠不幸，他必將無法容忍他所愛的人可能會被不相信者的花言巧語所誤導。他對來世的確信，也讓他【無法對此再多包容】。

Observations of this sort pose 【an immediate problem for us, however, because】 criticizing a person’s faith is currently taboo in every corner of our culture.
但這類觀察立即帶給我們【一個問題：因為】在我們當前文化的每個角落，批評他人的信仰都屬禁忌。

But technology has 【a way of creating】 fresh moral 【imperatives】. Our technical advances in the art of war have finally rendered our religious differences—and 【hence our religious beliefs】—antithetical to our survival. We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of 【the book of Revelation】,
可是科技【創造了】全新的道德【指令】。人類在戰爭藝術方面的技術如此精進，終於讓我們的宗教差異以及【伴隨的宗教信仰差異】危害到人類的生存。我們再也不能忽視這項事實：我們的鄰居中成億上萬的人都相信殉教的形而上學，或相信【他們聖書】表面字義所揭示的真理，

Consider the case of alchemy: it fascinated human beings for over a thousand years, and yet anyone who seriously claims to be a practicing alchemist today will have disqualified himself for most positions of responsibility in our society. Faith-based religion 【must】 suffer the same slide into obsolescence.
以煉金術為例：它曾蠱惑人類一千多年，但在當今社會，任何人若鄭重自稱是一位煉金術士，將被認為不夠資格擔任絕大多數重要職務。同樣地，以信念為基礎的宗教【必將】落入歷史廢墟之中。

What is the alternative to 【religion as we know it】? As it turns out, this is the wrong question to ask. Chemistry was not an “alternative” to alchemy; it was a wholesale exchange of 【ignorance at its most rococo】 for genuine knowledge.
那麼【就我們所知，宗教】的替代品是什麼？其實這是個錯誤的提問。化學並不是煉金術的「替代品」；它是【以極其精巧華麗的方式，把無知】整批置換成為真正的知識。

OF COURSE, people of faith 【fall】 on a continuum:
當然，秉持信仰的人們【可以分布】在一個連續帶上：

they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the 【unjustified】 beliefs of others.
他們想像，一旦每個人都學會尊重其他人【無法證實】的信仰，和平之路就能順利展開。

Many religious moderates have taken the 【apparent high road】 of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths,
許多宗教溫和派已經奉行了多元主義的【大道】，確信所有不同的信仰都同等有效，

As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of Judgment, he cannot possibly “respect” the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by 【these very ideas】 and await their adherents even now.
只要基督徒相信在最後審判日唯有自家受洗的弟兄們才能得到救贖，他就不可能「尊重」其他信仰，因為他知道地獄的火已被【他們那樣的想法】所激發，正等著焚燒其追隨者呢。

Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that 【these】 rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence.
伊斯蘭教徒和猶太教徒通常也用同樣傲慢的態度只尊崇自己的信仰，並且幾千年來一直狂熱地重申其他信仰的錯誤。但無庸置疑地，這【兩種】相互對抗的信仰系統也都同樣缺乏證據。