城大洋教授發表侮辱香港人的言論！
univwa...@hutchcity.com
Update on City University Randy LaPolla Case, 13 July 1999.
(This is a long document, about 8 pages, written in Big5 Chinese. You
may want to print it out for easy reading)
城大洋教授發表侮辱香港人的言論！
致所有香港同胞和城市大學的學生﹕
《大學監督委員會》(University Watchdog) 是個志願
的民間組織（會址設在香港中文大學內。電郵﹕
univwa...@hutchcity.com），專門揭露香港各大
學內發生的各種不平和不公事件，以討公道。本星
期，我們想向全世界揭發香港城市大學中文、翻譯和
語言學系的一個美國洋教授 Randy LaPolla（拉波
拉）所發表的一些歧視香港人和廣東人的驚人言論。
我們覺得事態十分嚴重。城大師生、全體香港人都應
當知道此事，而且必須站起來講話，免得再被美國佬
欺負！
今年五月中，拉波拉在跟陳芬妮 (Fanny Chan) 女士
辯論香港公開大學的 Paul Levine 事件 （詳見許多
Internet newsgroups: "To All OUHK Students - Dr.
Levine's Case"）時，在一封寫給陳女士的電郵中，竟
公然在互聯網上發表以下無知的言論，嚴重侮辱了所
有講粵語的人士。他說﹕
「在筆譯方面（使用標準中文書面語），沒有任何以
粵語為母語的人，會對標準中文書面語有道地的掌
握，因為標準中文書面語是根據漢語的文法和用法，
而非根據粵語。」（拉波拉的英文原文﹕"In the case
of written translation (using Standard Written Chinese),
no native Cantonese speaker has native command of
Standard Written Chinese, as the language is based on
Mandarin grammar and usage, not Cantonese." （詳見
下文的電郵）
這封電郵也同時以副本方式發給城大中文、翻譯和語
言學系的十多位教授，包括系主任徐烈炯教授、張隆
溪教授、洗景炬教授、朱純深教授等人。他們都可以
是本案的証人。這段文字中最驚人的言論是，拉波拉
說，中文書面語不是香港人的母語，香港人或講粵語
的人對中文書面語"沒有道地的掌握"。請大家看看，
這是不是一種無知的言論？是不是一種對所有香港
人和廣東人的種族歧視？拉波拉認為香港人對中文
書面語沒有 "native command"！這是甚麼話？
陳芬妮女士在回電中已駁斥了拉波拉的歪論。她指
出，拉波拉搞不清中文口語和書面語的分別。他把許
多東西混淆了。拉波拉只知其一，不知其二。他不知
道香港人和中文書面語的關係是十分密切而複雜
的。他不知道香港人從幼稚園就開始學中文書面語，
可以一直學到大學。拉波拉太狗眼看低人了。他以為
標準中文的文法和用法不是根據粵語，便一口咬定香
港人學不好中文書面語，對中文書面語沒有 "native
command"。 天啊！這是對香港人多大的侮辱啊！
更驚人的是，拉波拉不是普通的美國人。他還是拿到
中國語言學博士學位的一個美國教授（雖然他的中國
語言學博士是在美國拿的﹕1990年在加州大學柏克
麗分校）。而且，他竟然還在城大中文、翻譯和語言
系教授中國語言學的課程。以一個中國語言學教授的
身分，竟發表如此荒謬、如此無知、如此侮辱香港人
的言論，我們覺得是不可原諒的！
以拉波拉這樣一知半解的中國語言學學識，他究竟能
在城大教授中國語言學嗎？我們十分懷疑。他有足夠
的學識嗎？他會不會誤人子弟啊？他的中國語言學
博士學位是怎樣拿的？他是不是在課堂上，也經常發
表如此歧視香港學生的言論？所以我們要發表這一
封給所有香港同胞和城大學生的公開信，請城大學生
站起來講話，揭發拉波拉在課堂上的言論。我們吁請
城大學生採取下列行動，大家合力起來，賞給這個美
國教授"一記響亮的耳光"﹕
（1）我們聽說，拉波拉在城大課堂上經常有一種美
國白人的優越感，有美國帝國主義的作風，而且經常
嘲笑香港學生的中文，經常諷刺香港人身為中國人，
卻學不好中文。我們吁請城大學生給我們提供證據。
在 Internet newsgroups 上揭發這個醜陋的美國佬的
種種不切合城大教授身分的言行。
（2）請城大學生踴躍寫信給城大中文、翻譯和語言
系的系主任、城大文學院院長和城大校長張信剛教
授，要求城大徹底調查這個拉波拉事件。而且立即停
止讓拉波拉在城大繼續教授中國語言學的課程，免得
他再繼續以他那種一知半解的中國語言學識，來誤導
香港同胞們的子弟！
城大是以香港納稅人的錢辦的。我們不能允許一個無
知的美國教授，在一所由香港納稅人出錢辦的大學
裡，發表侮辱香港人的言論。
香港同胞們，讓我們站起來合力對付這個無知的美國
教授！香港不需要這種學藝不精的美國教授！
我們將繼續在 Internet 上展開這個對付拉波拉的行
動，每個星期都將在下列Internet newsgroups 上發表
我們的訊息（香港公開大學的 Paul Levine 事件也見
此）﹕
hk.rec.movies, hk.rec.music, hk.rec.comics,
hk.newsgroups.discuss, hk.forsale, hk.comp.chinese,
hk.comp.software, hk.general, hk.jobs.recruit,
hk.newsgroups.announce, hk.politics, hk.seminars,
hk.talk.feelings, hk.talk.sex,
microsoft.public.hk.ntw.panchinese, sci.lang.translation,
sci.lang.translation.marketplace, soc.culture.hongkong,
ucb.students.chinese, tw.bbs.lang.chinese,
tw.bbs.literal.chinese, tw.bbs.sci.sex,
alt.binaries.pictures.supermodels, alt.binaries.pictures.pantyhose,
alt.chinese.computing, alt.chinese.text,
alt.education.university.vision2020,
chinese.newsgroups.discussion, chinese.newsgroups.newusers,
chinese.talk.politics, cn.bb5.lang.chinese, cn.bb5.soc.hongkong,
cuhk.acp.forum, cuhk.ads, cuhk.alumni.forum, cuhk.bba.students,
cuhk.english.students, cuhk.csc.forum, cuhk.forum,
cuhk.society.cc-student-
union, cuhk.society.guoshi, fj.soc.culture.chinese
（newsgroups 將不斷增加）
一直到拉波拉向所有香港人道歉，同時城大停止讓他
再教授中國語言學課程為止。請大家拭目以待！
大學監督委員會 (University Watchdog)
email: univwa...@hutchcity.com ）
（歡迎大家以中文或英文來電郵給我們）
本檔案也將以電郵方式傳給下列人士﹕
國際知名的中國語言學家﹕
Prof Samuel H. N. Cheung 張洪年 <hmhs...@ust.hk>,
Prof Ting Pang-hsin 丁邦新 <shph...@ust.hk>,
Prof Benjamin Tsou 鄒嘉彥 <adbi...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof William Wang 王士元 <eew...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof James Matisoff - 拉波拉在美國的博士論文指導教授
<mati...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
香港知名專欄作家﹕
張小嫻 <siu...@writeme.com>,
蔡瀾 <chu...@writeme.com>,
李碧華 <lipi...@writeme.com>,
尊子 <jua...@writeme.com>,
石琪 <she...@writeme.com>,
嚴浩 <yi...@writeme.com>,
左丁山 <tin...@writeme.com>,
李敏 <li...@i-cable.com>,
陳也 <supr...@writeme.com>,
區樂民 <appled...@hotmail.com>,
丘靈 <wi...@writeme.com>,
阿樂 <alo...@writeme.com>,
鍾偉民 <chung...@writeme.com>,
林超榮 <lamch...@writeme.com>,
陳星 <kwy...@mail.mingpao.com>
明報副刊 <mpce...@mingpao.com>,
(以上各香港知名專欄作家的電郵地址取自《明報》和《蘋果日報‧名采版》。
作家名單將不斷增加。）
公開大學﹕
President S W Tam OUHK via <openl...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
VP Danny Wong - OUHK via <openl...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Mr Richard Armour Registrar OUHK via <o...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Prof Kao Mayching -Dean ASS <mc...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Dr Paul Levine L&T OUHK <ple...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Ms Emily Poon L&T OUHK <ep...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Ms Grace Tse - L&T OUHK <gt...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Dr. So Wai Chor <wc...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
城大校長、文學院院長、系主任及教授﹕
President H K Chang - City University 城大校長
<opjo...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Mathew Y Chen 文學院院長 <fhmy...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Xu Liejiong 系主任 <ctl...@cityu.edu.hk> ,
Prof M Leung <ctml...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Zhang Longxi <ctl...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof K K Sin <cts...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Tom Lai <ctto...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Ken Au <ctk...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Zhu Chunshen <ct...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Rachel Lung <ctl...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Maria Cheng <ctma...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Olivia Mo <ctol...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Mary Erbaugh <ctm...@cityu.edu.hk>
(大學教授名單將不斷增加）
-------------------------------------------------------
以下是 LaPolla 寫給陳芬妮女士的電郵（a），和陳女士的回郵原件（b）﹕
(a) Dr. LaPolla's email to Fanny Chan:
Dear Ms Chan,
It seems as if you have missed the point, so even you have apologized,
I would like to clarify a few points you mentioned.
Fanny Chan wrote:
> (1)What is really in question (and you haven't
> addressed this) is whether Dr. Levine has a native command of the
> Chinese language or not, not whether he is an American or British. So it
> is not a question of "ethnic origin" or "race", to quote your words.
> That is why in all my previous mails I have deliberately avoided using
> such words "American"
> or "Canadian" to describe Dr. Levine, to be fair
> to him. I have
> described him only as a "non-native speaker of
> Chinese", which I think is
> accurate and fair, unless Dr. Levine has
> objection to this. Correct me
> if I'm wrong.
There are two points here. One is whether the
question is or is not one of native or native-like
command of the language. In the case of written
translation (using Standard Written Chinese), no
native Cantonese speaker has native command of
Standard Written Chinese, as the language is based
on Mandarin grammar and usage, not Cantonese. And
native command of the language is not actually
what is at issue. If that were the case, any child
off the street who spoke Mandarin as a native
language plus English could teach translation.
But that is not the case. Teaching translation is
a lot more than just knowing two languages; it
takes a certain type of expertise, and one that
Dr. Levine unquestionably has.
The second point is whether what you did was based
on the question of race/ethnic origin or not. As
you have no idea of Dr. Levine's ability in
written Chinese, even if you have heard him speak,
you judged his ability purely on the fact that he
is ethnically not Chinese. That is a racist thing
to do.
> (5)The issue of native command of Chinese does
> make a big difference in
> certain language-related courses. For instance,
> in Chinese composition,
> in English-to-Chinese translation, in Chinese
> literature, or even in
> Chinese linguistics (if taught in HK to HK
> students; entirely different
> matter if taught in America to American
> students), HK students do
> expect his teacher to have a native command of
> the Chinese language.
They would be wrong to assume that only someone
with a native command of the language could teach
such a course (and in terms of Chinese, just which
dialect would that have to be?). By your logic, a
native Cantonese speaker could not teach a course
on Mandarin linguistics or even one on Chinese
literature which is not written in Cantonese.
> (10) I think Dr. Levine should teach what he is good at.
How do you know what he is good at? Again, you are
basing this on his race/ethnic background.
By the way, in terms of who can handle what kinds
of translation and interpretation, I was once
recruited to be a translator/interpreter for the
State Department in the U.S. Their policy is
always that you translate/interpret from your
native language into your non-native language, not
the other way around.
>I'm sure you're aware that in such academic
>publications as the Chronicle of Higher Education and Times Higher Education,
>there are a lot of ads for teaching posts in language-related which require
>the applicants to have "native or near-native
>command" of a language.
>Surely such an requirement is not racial. If it
>is, then Noam Chomsky
>and all the mainstream American linguists are to
>be accused of "racial
>idiocy" (again, to borrow Dr. LaPolla's phrase).
>I think the two E-C
>translation courses you're now coordinating fall
>under this category.
>Don't you think so?
It is of course the case that for language
courses, NOT linguistics or any other courses,
native or near-native command is required, but
this says nothing about race, it is only about
ability. An applicant would never be judged to
have or not have native or near-native ability in
a language based on his or her race, as you have
done.
I hope now we can put an end to this matter. I
wish you the best of luck in your studies.
Randy J. LaPolla
Associate Professor of Linguistics
CTL, City University of Hong Kong
Tat Chee Ave., Kowloon
HONG KONG
--------------------------------------------
(b) Fanny Chan's reply to LaPolla
25 May 99 2:15 pm HK time
Dear Dr. Randy LaPolla,
Your second email is written in much better taste than your first
one. Let me take this opportunity to respond to some of the points you
raised, for the benefit of all on the mailing list, as follows.
(Lines that begin with the symbol > are by LaPolla.)
> In the case of written translation (using Standard Written Chinese), no
> native Cantonese speaker has native command of
> Standard Written Chinese, as the language is based
> on Mandarin grammar and usage, not Cantonese.
Really weird. "...no native Cantonese speaker has native command of
Standard Written Chinese." My goodness, my dear Dr. LaPolla, have you
realized how serious and how "offending" such a claim is, especially
made by, of all people, you as a professor of Chinese linguistics at
the City University!? For a professor of Chinese linguistics to make
that kind of remarks, I think it is a very "malicious" "racist attack"
(to quote your own words) on the Cantonese-speaking people. "That is a
racist thing to do." (your words again). Go and ask your Department
Head Professor Xu or Professor Benjamin Tsou, or maybe even Professor
James A. Matisoff for that matter, and see what they will say!
I think you are confused by the spoken and written form of Chinese.
You have mixed up a number of things. You are teaching Chinese
linguistics. Surely you know that there is only one form of Standard
Written Chinese ("language variety" is another matter). A Cantonese
speaker may or may not have native command of the Putonghua (the oral
form of Standard Chinese), but surely he has native command of the
written form of Standard Chinese, because that is the form he learns
in school, from kindergarten to university. If you don't believe me or
think that I'm wrong, go and tell your views to your
Cantonese-speaking colleagues at CTL, City University and see what
they will say. I am sending an email copy to Professor H K Chang,
President of City University, to let him see a very weird and very
racist remark made by a City University's Professor of Chinese
linguistics.
I am putting Professor Samuel Cheung, Professor Ting Pang-hsin, and
Professor James Matisoff on the mailing list. Perhaps they have taught
you Chinese linguistics at UC Berkeley too. Let them see your remarks.
They are the world class authority on Chinese linguistics. It will be
very interesting indeed to hear their views on your remarks.
We are talking about written translation here, so it is the written
form of standard Chinese that counts. And don't underestimate
Cantonese speakers in acquiring native or near-native command of
Putonghua either. You'll be surprised how many Cantonese speakers are
also native speakers of Putonghua. I count myself as a native speaker
of both Cantonese and Putonghua, because I learned both languages from
childhood, one at home and one in school. Another good example is Dr.
K K Sin in your very department. He is a native speaker of Cantonese
and in March this year at the Translation Symposium at the Chinese
University, he delivered his paper in standard Putonghua at native
level. I find your knowledge of the local language scene very poor
indeed.
> native command of the language is not actually
> what is at issue. If that were the case, any child
> off the street who spoke Mandarin as a native
> language plus English could teach translation.
> But that is not the case. Teaching translation is
> a lot more than just knowing two languages; it
> takes a certain type of expertise, and one that
> Dr. Levine unquestionably has.
Not so. Forget about the child analogy. That's oversimplification.
Yes, teaching translation is a lot more than just knowing two
languages. But Dr. Levine does not even have an adequate command of
Chinese. He does not meet the basic requirement. To put it rather
bluntly (which I hate to do so, so far), if Dr. Levine can read and
write like a Chinese, then by means teach the two E-C translation
courses. If he cannot read and write like a Chinese, that is, if he
does not have a native or near-native command of Chinese, then he
should leave the two E-C translation courses alone. I think it is the
only honorable thing for him to do. If I were him, I would do
likewise. Why should an American be allowed to get away with lesser
degree of language command and experience when he is teaching E-C
courses in HK? Why should he be given such preferential treatment? I
think that is "reverse racial discrimination" against the local
Chinese professors. If Dr. Levine thinks his Chinese is good enough to
teach native Chinese speakers E-C translation, then by all means
continue to stay on that job, and the student shall treat him with
respect. If not, he should go. I have no interest in his "skin color"
(Dr. LaPolla's words). I am only interested in Dr. Levine's command of
the Chinese language.
From now on I am putting Professor Liu Ching-chi, President of the
Hong Kong Translation Society and Professor Serena Jin, Chair
Professor in Translation at CUHK, on the mailing list of this on-going
debate. It would be very interesting to have their views on a
non-native speaker of Chinese teaching native speakers how to
translate from English into Chinese.
> The second point is whether what you did was based
> on the question of race/ethnic origin or not. As
> you have no idea of Dr. Levine's ability in
> written Chinese, even if you have heard him speak,
> you judged his ability purely on the fact that he
> is ethnically not Chinese. That is a racist thing
> to do.
No, again not so. I have a pretty good idea of Dr. Levine's ability in
written Chinese. For me to fight this kind of campaign, of course I
have to do (and I'm still doing) a very thorough research on Dr.
Levine as well as on OUHK. I have a huge file of materials. I don't
accuse people lightly. I don't make claims without basis. In order to
assess Dr. Levine's command of Chinese, I've talked to professors who
know him, and to some of his former colleagues at City University. In
this way I get a pretty good professional assessment of Dr. Levine's
command of Chinese. Or should we rather ask a few local reporters to
interview Dr. Levine and find out more about his "ability in written
Chinese"?
And ever since Professor Kao disclosed that Dr. Levine "has authored a
few academic articles in Chinese", I have been trying hard to find
those articles and would like to take a closer look at them.
Unfortunately, they don't seem to be published in well-known or well
established academic journals (sorry to say), and I've a hard time
finding them. I wish Professor Kao could give me the full
bibliographical data as well, as is standard academic practice when
you give such references.
Of course, for me as a native speaker of both Cantonese and Putonghua
(I still use Putonghua at home and speak Cantonese in work), I have
the added advantage of having a "native intuition" of Dr. Levine's
command of Chinese a few moments after he opened his mouth in speaking
either Cantonese or Putonghua. (I must say his Putonghua is much
better than his Cantonese).
> They would be wrong to assume that only someone
> with a native command of the language could teach
> such a course (and in terms of Chinese, just which
> dialect would that have to be?). By your logic, a
> native Cantonese speaker could not teach a course
> on Mandarin linguistics or even one on Chinese
> literature which is not written in Cantonese.
I have studied Chinese linguistics before, but I have yet to come
across such a narrowly defined course as your "Mandarin linguistics".
Will such a course deal only with Mandarin data in the spoken form,
excluding all written data? If yes, then of course a Cantonese speaker
with a poor command of Mandarin is ill qualified to teach it. And such
a person, unlike Dr. Levine, will certainly have the good sense not to
teach such a narrowly focused "Mandarin linguistics". It is the only
honorable thing to do.
Chinese literature is practically all in written form. A native
speaker of Cantonese does have a native command of the written form of
Chinese (for details, see above). No problem there.
To judge by the kinds of questions you asked, my dear Dr. LaPolla, you
seem very unclear and uncertain about how a Cantonese speaker acquires
a native command of the written form of Standard Chinese. Is that the
way you teach Chinese linguistics at City University, making all these
racial remarks and claims? Is it any wonder that one of your students
has written in the course evaluation that no "white man" should be
allowed to teach Chinese linguistics in HK?
> > I think Dr. Levine should teach what he is
> > good at.
> How do you know what he is good at? Again, you are basing this on his race/ethnic background.
Not so. As I said, I have done research on Dr. Levine. I know what
courses he previously taught at City University. I know what his
fields of specialization are. And since Professor Kao Mayching
disclosed that Dr. Levine has "supervised numerous B.A. and M.A.
translation dissertations from Chinese-English and English-Chinese", I
have been trying hard to find out how many of these "dissertations"
are from Chinese-to-English, and how many are from English-to-Chinese
(Professor Kao did not say clearly). Naturally, this is not easy and
will take some time to find out. Perhaps Dr. Levine can tell us more?
> By the way, in terms of who can handle what kinds
> of translation and interpretation, I was once
> recruited to be a translator/interpreter for the
> State Department in the U.S. Their policy is
> always that you translate/interpret from your
> native language into your non-native language, not
> the other way around.
Are you sure it is the State Department's "policy"? Are you trying to
"make things up"? Or do you have documentary proof to substantiate
what you said?
I just received the latest issue of ATA (American Translators'
Association) Chronicle, April 99 issue. And on page 15 of that issue,
the legendary FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) has an ad
recruiting "translators for Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, French, Hebrew,
Japanese, Korean, and Russian". And it says: "Potential candidates
must successfully pass a battery of language tests which include
written translations from the foreign language into English ....".
Notice that it is FROM the foreign language into English. Not the
other way round, which will be weird.
> An applicant would never be judged to
> have or not have native or near-native ability in
> a language based on his or her race, as you have
> done.
I have never done this. Show me the passage where I say something to
this effect. In fact, I have clarified in my letter to Dr. Levine that
"native speakers of Chinese do not necessarily mean ethnic Chinese
only, but may include non-Chinese people who have attained native or
near-native command of Chinese."
Fanny Chan
email: fch...@yahoo.com
Mailing List:
Prof Liu Ching Chi - President HK Translation Society
<cc...@ln.edu.hk>,
Prof Serena Jin -Chair in Translation - CUHK
<sheng...@cuhk.edu.hk>,
Prof Samuel Cheung <hmhs...@ust.edu>,
Prof Ting Pang-hsin <shph...@ust.edu>,
Prof Benjamin Tsou <adbi...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof William Wang <eew...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof James Matisoff <mati...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
President H K Chang - City University <opjo...@cityu.edu.hk>,
President S W Tam OUHK via <openl...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
VP Danny Wong - OUHK via <openl...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Mr Richard Armour Registrar OUHK via <o...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Prof Kao Mayching -Dean ASS <mc...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Dr Paul Levine L&T OUHK <ple...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Ms Emily Poon L&T OUHK <ep...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Ms Grace Tse - L&T OUHK <gt...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Dr. So Wai Chor <wc...@ouhk.edu.hk>,
Prof Xu Liejiong <ctl...@cityu.edu.hk> ,
Prof M Leung <ctml...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Mathew Chen <fhmy...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Zhang Longxi <ctl...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof K K Sin <cts...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Tom Lai <ctto...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Ken Au <ctk...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Zhu Chunshen <ct...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Rachel Lung <ctl...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Maria Cheng <ctma...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Olivia Mo <ctol...@cityu.edu.hk>,
Prof Mary Erbaugh <ctm...@cityu.edu.hk>
Last note: As of 13 July 99, Dr LaPolla has not responded to this
email.
註﹕拉波拉到今天（7月13日）還沒有回覆陳女士的電郵。
趙里昱
這是污辱所有操大漢民族最其中一個最古老的語言﹕廣東話的人，
不止是香港人！
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
馬來西亞來的廣東大漢主義者 ■
趙里昱 ■
■
我的網頁－施氏嗜食獅 ■
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/hanculturalist ■
* 我支持西藏獨立，但堅決反對臺灣獨立！ ■
■
原因？ 到 http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html ■
去看看就知道了。 ■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
在加人/自由論壇
過大把一聽到亞洲就皺眉頭的人(想你買他的電腦的時候暫時不皺). 但呢只野就一定唔
清楚佢講緊乜, 對中國和中國人的了解也是和所有白人一樣, 完全從西方中心出發, 不
會意識到別的民族對語言的感情. 不過如果你去說他的語言, 他就會義正辭嚴地反駁你
不尊重他的語言.
不過城大的人搞得也太不夠水準了. 學一學英國人的下流, 口頭上半個字不提尊不尊重
的問題, 找個別的藉口炒佢, 讓他投訴都無從談起, 不是更好嗎?
--
自由論壇
http://home4u.hongkong.com/lifestyle/romance/bjl/
趙里昱 撰寫於文章 <378ce1e6...@netnews.att.net>...
塵網大師
>
>城大洋教授發表侮辱香港人的言論！
>致所有香港同胞和城市大學的學生﹕
>「在筆譯方面（使用標準中文書面語），沒有任何以
>粵語為母語的人，會對標準中文書面語有道地的掌
>握，因為標準中文書面語是根據漢語的文法和用法，
>而非根據粵語。」（拉波拉的英文原文﹕"In the case
>of written translation (using Standard Written Chinese),
>no native Cantonese speaker has native command of
>Standard Written Chinese, as the language is based on
>Mandarin grammar and usage, not Cantonese." （詳見
>下文的電郵）
>
>這封電郵也同時以副本方式發給城大中文、翻譯和語
>言學系的十多位教授，包括系主任徐烈炯教授、張隆
>溪教授、洗景炬教授、朱純深教授等人。他們都可以
>是本案的証人。這段文字中最驚人的言論是，拉波拉
>說，中文書面語不是香港人的母語，香港人或講粵語
>的人對中文書面語"沒有道地的掌握"。請大家看看，
>這是不是一種無知的言論？是不是一種對所有香港
>人和廣東人的種族歧視？拉波拉認為香港人對中文
>書面語沒有 "native command"！這是甚麼話？
大佬,唔好下下用種族歧視睇野喇,廣東話同白話文唔同架,條鬼婆無講錯厄.
(朋友,請不要濫用種族歧視,廣東語文和白話語文不同,拉波拉並無說錯)
說到歧視,廣東人為主的香港人竟然要用白話文體裁,白話文不是香港人的母語,
那是北佬恰(欺負)廣東佬,要香港人書寫白話文,若說"沒有道地的掌握"則稍為過分,
兩種體裁都很簡單,看多幾篇就已經適應.鬼婆看不懂廣東語文,就會這樣說,只是
她不懂事,學識唔夠,對她稍加教導廣府文化,即可掌握.明白一切,小事一件,大驚少怪.
香港中文書面語採用白話語文,不用廣府語文,才是一種對所有香港人和廣東人的種族歧視.
只不過是久而久之,習慣了.無厘頭只要看得明就ok喇.得咁多種族歧視.難道
想挑起南北文化的衝突?香港人對京官已經.............何必再在語文體裁諸多挑撥.
鬼婆無知,你們又如何?
百厭星
塵網大師 wrote:
> >
> >城大洋教授發表侮辱香港人的言論！
> >致所有香港同胞和城市大學的學生﹕
>
> >「在筆譯方面（使用標準中文書面語），沒有任何以
> >粵語為母語的人，會對標準中文書面語有道地的掌
> >握，因為標準中文書面語是根據漢語的文法和用法，
> >而非根據粵語。」（拉波拉的英文原文﹕"In the case
> >of written translation (using Standard Written Chinese),
> >no native Cantonese speaker has native command of
> >Standard Written Chinese, as the language is based on
> >Mandarin grammar and usage, not Cantonese." （詳見
> >下文的電郵）
> >
> >這封電郵也同時以副本方式發給城大中文、翻譯和語
> >言學系的十多位教授，包括系主任徐烈炯教授、張隆
> >溪教授、洗景炬教授、朱純深教授等人。他們都可以
> >是本案的証人。這段文字中最驚人的言論是，拉波拉
> >說，中文書面語不是香港人的母語，香港人或講粵語
> >的人對中文書面語"沒有道地的掌握"。請大家看看，
> >這是不是一種無知的言論？是不是一種對所有香港
> >人和廣東人的種族歧視？拉波拉認為香港人對中文
> >書面語沒有 "native command"！這是甚麼話？
>
> 大佬,唔好下下用種族歧視睇野喇,廣東話同白話文唔同架,條鬼婆無講錯厄.
> (朋友,請不要濫用種族歧視,廣東語文和白話語文不同,拉波拉並無說錯)
>
> 說到歧視,廣東人為主的香港人竟然要用白話文體裁,白話文不是香港人的母語,
> 那是北佬恰(欺負)廣東佬,要香港人書寫白話文,若說"沒有道地的掌握"則稍為過分,
> 兩種體裁都很簡單,看多幾篇就已經適應.鬼婆看不懂廣東語文,就會這樣說,只是
> 她不懂事,學識唔夠,對她稍加教導廣府文化,即可掌握.明白一切,小事一件,大驚少怪.
其實用廣東話寫野﹐北佬同台灣人都睇唔明架。不過係咪真係咁唔明呢﹖其實又唔係。聽D台灣
人講﹐如果拒地睇多幾次﹐拒地都會大致明白。
> 香港中文書面語採用白話語文,不用廣府語文,才是一種對所有香港人和廣東人的種族歧視.
> 只不過是久而久之,習慣了.無厘頭只要看得明就ok喇.得咁多種族歧視.難道
> 想挑起南北文化的衝突?香港人對京官已經.............何必再在語文體裁諸多挑撥.
> 鬼婆無知,你們又如何?
我都係咁話。其實個鬼婆真係無講左。香港唔
少人真係寫唔到書名語用的白話語文。你又
可以話係香港教育問題。不過如果香港係講
粵語﹐要D人寫用普通話用的書面語其實唔係
真係咁容易(咁又唔係難)。美國D低下階層黑
人講D黑人英文。叫這些黑人中學畢業後寫D
正統英文都難。
robert
> 城大洋教授發表侮辱香港人的言論！
> 致所有香港同胞和城市大學的學生﹕
>
> 「在筆譯方面（使用標準中文書面語），沒有任何以
> 粵語為母語的人，會對標準中文書面語有道地的掌
> 握，因為標準中文書面語是根據漢語的文法和用法，
> 而非根據粵語。」（拉波拉的英文原文﹕"In the case
> of written translation (using Standard Written Chinese),
> no native Cantonese speaker has native command of
> Standard Written Chinese, as the language is based on
> Mandarin grammar and usage, not Cantonese." （詳見
> 下文的電郵）
呢個問題都好複雜。
首先要搞清Standard Written Chinese定義。
可惜，兩位教授都無針對問題。
Tak Yeung
一定醒過中國人。叫佢番去美國強姦自己呀媽啦﹗
香港唔觀迎呢D白痴﹗係度識少少扮代表﹗中國
有幾多種方言你都未知只係識得個普通話就係度
呀之呀左﹗
塵網大師
>過大把一聽到亞洲就皺眉頭的人(想你買他的電腦的時候暫時不皺). 但呢只野就一定唔
>清楚佢講緊乜, 對中國和中國人的了解也是和所有白人一樣, 完全從西方中心出發, 不
>會意識到別的民族對語言的感情. 不過如果你去說他的語言, 他就會義正辭嚴地反駁你
>不尊重他的語言.
>
>不過城大的人搞得也太不夠水準了. 學一學英國人的下流, 口頭上半個字不提尊不尊重
>的問題, 找個別的藉口炒佢, 讓他投訴都無從談起, 不是更好嗎?
我就覺得城大班大哥種族歧視絛鬼.
Tak To
uw> 「在筆譯方面（使用標準中文書面語），沒有任何以粵語為母語
uw> 的人，會對標準中文書面語有道地的掌握，因為標準中文書面語
uw> 是根據漢語的文法和用法，而非根據粵語。」（拉波拉的英文原
uw> 文﹕"In the case of written translation (using Standard
uw> Written Chinese), no native Cantonese speaker has native
uw> command of Standard Written Chinese, as the language is
uw> based on Mandarin grammar and usage, not Cantonese."
"塵網大師" wrote:
塵> 大佬,唔好下下用種族歧視睇野喇,廣東話同白話文唔同架,
塵> 條鬼婆無講錯厄. (朋友,請不要濫用種族歧視,廣東語文和白話
塵> 語文不同,拉波拉並無說錯)
原文有點含糊，值得分析一下。
原文的意思是﹕「因為粵語不同普通話，所以凡母語是粵語的，
都沒法把（基於官話的）《標準書面中文》學到道地的程度。」
但什麼才算是「道地」呢？是否所有非母語都不能學到道地的程
度？如果作者的「道地」定義是那麼狹，非要母語不算道地，那
倒不是歧視的。但如此一來，中國四分之一的人口的母語不是官
話，這四分之一的中國人也不能掌握道地的《標準書面中文》了
（且不論各地官話的不同）。
如果作者真是用這個狹窄的標準，我們大可不必理會，聳一聳肩
的說﹕「So what？那又如何？」
但如果作者用的是另外的標準，那便有很多問題了。母語是粵語
的人學不好，那母語是吳語、湘語、贛語、閩東、閩南、客家、
英語、等等的呢？香港人學不好，那在大陸說粵語的人呢？母語
是粵語的人能否學好英文；說英語的人能否學好法文？
能否學好一種非母語，學習環境和師資是重要的關鍵。原文作者
完全不提這些，卻單單說所有母語是粵語的人都學不好，難免容
易引起誤會，以為言下之意是「粵語令人智力降低」之類的謬論
。
【按】我沒有讀過整篇原文，所以不曉得 univwatchdog 君有沒
有斷章取義。
塵> 說到歧視,廣東人為主的香港人竟然要用白話文體裁,白話文不是
塵> 香港人的母語, 那是北佬恰(欺負)廣東佬,要香港人書寫白話文,
塵> 若說"沒有道地的掌握"則稍為過分,
是否過分是要看看「道地」的定義的。（見上。）
然而這又和香港人是否被人欺負有什麼關係？
塵> 兩種體裁都很簡單,看多幾篇就已經適應.
從「適應明白」到「通順」到「道地」是有程度上的不同的。後
二者不是幾篇便可以解決的事，要通過一定時間的學習。
比如英文。寫英文時不理會時態，人稱，單數複數等文法上的細
節，基本上也不會阻礙讀者的理解的，但這是否表示可以不重視
文法呢？我覺得學《標準書面中文》的態度要應該是和學英文的
一樣；首先是重視《標準書面中文》本身的文法和習慣，不可以
動軋以粵語的文法和習慣代入了事。在句子結構上兩者相差不多
，但在用詞上的分別往往很大，尤其要留意。
我個人覺得香港人不大注重（尊重）《標準書面中文》本身的標
準，老師不大更正學生這方面的錯；大概老師本身自己也不甚了
了。
塵> 鬼婆看不懂廣東語文,就會這樣說,只是她不懂事,學識唔夠,對她
塵> 稍加教導廣府文化,即可掌握.明白一切,小事一件,大驚少怪.
那是另外一回事。假如她說香港人的英文不好，夾雜很多中式句
子結構和音譯中文字，難到解決的辦法便是要她學好中文？
塵> 香港中文書面語採用白話語文,不用廣府語文,才是一種對所有香
塵> 港人和廣東人的種族歧視.
又是另外的事。可以提倡在香港實行用《書面粵語》來代替《標
準書面中文》，但不能否定後者的價值，前者不能完全取代後者
。中文成為香港的法定語言之一久矣，但在香港社會中文還是不
能取代英文。
塵> 只不過是久而久之,習慣了.無厘頭只要看得明就ok喇.得咁多種
塵> 族歧視.難道想挑起南北文化的衝突?香港人對京官已經........
塵> .....何必再在語文體裁諸多挑撥.鬼婆無知,你們又如何?
照作者的定義，毛主席、江核心、朱總理都未能掌握道地的《標
準書面中文》，何來挑撥？總之，作者無知也好，無意也好，讀
者又何必介懷？
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.edu.-
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the .- to get my real email addr
塵網大師
>univwa...@hutchcity.com wrote:
>uw> 「在筆譯方面（使用標準中文書面語），沒有任何以粵語為母語
>uw> 的人，會對標準中文書面語有道地的掌握，因為標準中文書面語
>uw> 是根據漢語的文法和用法，而非根據粵語。」（拉波拉的英文原
>uw> 文﹕"In the case of written translation (using Standard
>uw> Written Chinese), no native Cantonese speaker has native
>uw> command of Standard Written Chinese, as the language is
>uw> based on Mandarin grammar and usage, not Cantonese."
>
>"塵網大師" wrote:
>塵> 大佬,唔好下下用種族歧視睇野喇,廣東話同白話文唔同架,
>塵> 條鬼婆無講錯厄. (朋友,請不要濫用種族歧視,廣東語文和白話
>塵> 語文不同,拉波拉並無說錯)
>
>原文有點含糊，值得分析一下。
>
>原文的意思是﹕「因為粵語不同普通話，所以凡母語是粵語的，
>都沒法把（基於官話的）《標準書面中文》學到道地的程度。」
>但什麼才算是「道地」呢？是否所有非母語都不能學到道地的程
>度？如果作者的「道地」定義是那麼狹，非要母語不算道地，那
>倒不是歧視的。但如此一來，中國四分之一的人口的母語不是官
>話，這四分之一的中國人也不能掌握道地的《標準書面中文》了
>（且不論各地官話的不同）。
>
>如果作者真是用這個狹窄的標準，我們大可不必理會，聳一聳肩
>的說﹕「So what？那又如何？」
>
對了,「So what？那又如何？」何關種族歧視?
>但如果作者用的是另外的標準，那便有很多問題了。母語是粵語
>的人學不好，那母語是吳語、湘語、贛語、閩東、閩南、客家、
>英語、等等的呢？香港人學不好，那在大陸說粵語的人呢？母語
>是粵語的人能否學好英文；說英語的人能否學好法文？
>
>能否學好一種非母語，學習環境和師資是重要的關鍵。原文作者
>完全不提這些，卻單單說所有母語是粵語的人都學不好，難免容
>易引起誤會，以為言下之意是「粵語令人智力降低」之類的謬論
>。
>
條鬼原文,上文下理,絕無「粵語令人智力降低」之意.
univwatchdog 導向種族歧視,斷章取義,有些過分.
>【按】我沒有讀過整篇原文，所以不曉得 univwatchdog 君有沒
>有斷章取義。
>
>塵> 說到歧視,廣東人為主的香港人竟然要用白話文體裁,白話文不是
>塵> 香港人的母語, 那是北佬恰(欺負)廣東佬,要香港人書寫白話文,
>塵> 若說"沒有道地的掌握"則稍為過分,
>
>是否過分是要看看「道地」的定義的。（見上。）
>
>然而這又和香港人是否被人欺負有什麼關係？
>
由八股文到白話文,中國人事實已經認白話文是標準語文體.
所有華人都看得懂.能夠互相溝通,值得推廣.統一文體是必須的.
另一方面,廣府語體廣泛在香港應用,受文者若是廣東人自然增加一份親切感.
但香港政府,特別是教育界,有理無理將廣東語文完全否定,謬稱寫作者中文語文
水準低,"對標準中文書面語沒有道地的掌握",一知半解,胡說八道,接近"欺負".
(或稱之為不尊重地方語文文化也可以)
>塵> 兩種體裁都很簡單,看多幾篇就已經適應.
>
>從「適應明白」到「通順」到「道地」是有程度上的不同的。後
>二者不是幾篇便可以解決的事，要通過一定時間的學習。
>
>比如英文。寫英文時不理會時態，人稱，單數複數等文法上的細
>節，基本上也不會阻礙讀者的理解的，但這是否表示可以不重視
>文法呢？我覺得學《標準書面中文》的態度要應該是和學英文的
>一樣；首先是重視《標準書面中文》本身的文法和習慣，不可以
>動軋以粵語的文法和習慣代入了事。在句子結構上兩者相差不多
>，但在用詞上的分別往往很大，尤其要留意。
>
>我個人覺得香港人不大注重（尊重）《標準書面中文》本身的標該
>準，老師不大更正學生這方面的錯；大概老師本身自己也不甚了
>了。
>
香港教科書,報章雜誌書籍,絕大部分都是白話文,只有漫畫,新聞組才多見廣東話.
兩種體裁對香港人來說,有何難哉?中英雙語都掂,莫講白,廣兩種語文體喇.
倒是你說得對: "香港人不大注重（尊重）《標準書面中文》"
香港人是故意不用白話文,而非不懂掌握白話文.
>塵> 鬼婆看不懂廣東語文,就會這樣說,只是她不懂事,學識唔夠,對她
>塵> 稍加教導廣府文化,即可掌握.明白一切,小事一件,大驚少怪.
>
>那是另外一回事。假如她說香港人的英文不好，夾雜很多中式句
>子結構和音譯中文字，難到解決的辦法便是要她學好中文？
>
條鬼身份是中國語言學博士,城大中文、翻譯和語言系教授中國語言學的課程.
連中國地方方言語文文化都不理解,就可以在城大教中文.妖,城大校長,系主任憑
什麼準則去招聘? univwatchdog 認為條鬼浪費納稅人金錢,我認為城大校長才
真正浪費納稅人金錢,竟然招聘些"不深入認識中文"的鬼教香港人中文,真是天大
笑話.對香港人中文語文程度的極大侮辱歧視.
>塵> 香港中文書面語採用白話語文,不用廣府語文,才是一種對所有香
>塵> 港人和廣東人的種族歧視.
>
>又是另外的事。可以提倡在香港實行用《書面粵語》來代替《標
>準書面中文》，但不能否定後者的價值，前者不能完全取代後者
>。中文成為香港的法定語言之一久矣，但在香港社會中文還是不
>能取代英文。
>
《書面粵語》只要香港政府尊重下就夠既勒,到底是地區文化.
《標準書面中文》還是應該推崇,統一中華文化,統一體裁.
雙體裁共存,互相尊重,互相體諒,就係咁簡單,使唔使下下搬出種族歧視出黎呀?
香港本來就沒有種族歧視,只有大香港主義,城大班友仔成日將種族歧視掛係
口邊,想搏乜野呀?
>塵> 只不過是久而久之,習慣了.無厘頭只要看得明就ok喇.得咁多種
>塵> 族歧視.難道想挑起南北文化的衝突?香港人對京官已經........
>塵> .....何必再在語文體裁諸多挑撥.鬼婆無知,你們又如何?
>
>照作者的定義，毛主席、江核心、朱總理都未能掌握道地的《標
>準書面中文》，何來挑撥？總之，作者無知也好，無意也好，讀
>者又何必介懷？
>
我無介懷架,網際漫遊,偶見不平,仗義執言.
事實條鬼絕無種族歧視,侮辱香港人之意,焉可亂扣帽子.
香港人唔歧視人地己經偷笑喇.