 Member since May '04
Working languages: English to Chinese
Chinese to English
|    Zong Yang Yu
PUNCTUAL, PRODUCTIVE & PROFES Services
Beijing, Beijing Local time: 16:47 CST (GMT+8)
Native in: Chinese  | | |
Freelancer,  Verified member | | Translation, Interpreting, Editing/proofreading, Website localization, Software localization, Transcription, Training, Desktop publishing, Project management, Vendor management, Sales, Operations management | | Specializes in: | | Accounting | Manufacturing | | Computers (general) | Management | | Law (general) | Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright | | Law: Contract(s) | Finance (general) | | Business/Commerce (general) | Certificates, Diplomas, Licenses, CVs |
| Also works in: | | Computers: Hardware | Medical: Instruments | | Medical: Health Care | Medical (general) | | Metallurgy / Casting | Petroleum Eng/Sci | | Real Estate | Sports / Fitness / Recreation | | Law: Taxation & Customs | Telecom(munications) | | Tourism & Travel | Transport / Transportation / Shipping | | Names (personal, company) | Manufacturing | | Mechanics / Mech Engineering | Marketing / Market Research | | Investment / Securities | Computers: Software | | Computers: Systems, Networks | Economics | | Engineering (general) | Engineering: Industrial | | Forestry / Wood / Timber | General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters | | Government / Politics | History | | Human Resources | IT (Information Technology) | | International Org/Dev/Coop | Internet, e-Commerce | | Patents |
More Less | | CNY | | PRO-level points: 342, Questions answered: 249, Questions asked: 76 | 1 projects entered | Project Details | Project Summary | Corroboration |
Translation
Volume: 600000 words
Completed: Apr 2008
Languages:
Chinese to English
English to Chinese | Localizationn of a leading bank's intranet of thousands pages
Finance (general) | No comment. |
More Less | | Visa, Wire transfer | Sample translations submitted: 2 | English to Chinese: America On Trial | Source text - English
THAT POWER IS NOT JUSTICE.
Respondent’s claim that justice is power cannot stand, nor can the derivative theory
that justice is defined by legality. These represent the notion that justice is
actually the opinion of the powerful, and we have already seen that opinion cannot be
truth. Opinion may correspond to the truth, and likewise the laws of the powerful may
be just, if they correspond to true justice. But they are not the measure of justice for
the same reason that man is not the measure of all things. The opinions of human beings
are relative. The truth is not.
Thus, the nature of justice cannot be an opinion, neither that of an individual nor
a government. The opinion of a government is still an opinion and not causative of the
truth any more than an individual’s. If the government believes its laws just, that does
not make them so. They may be just or the reverse, but not due to the government’s
opinion of the matter. Rather, it would be due to the congruity or lack thereof obtaining
between the law and true justice.
Some would even argue that the opinion of a God is yet an opinion, a position
seemingly more compelling when one considers the imperfect nature of the Pagan
Gods, constantly squabbling and scheming. It is beyond our scope to inquire whether
the opinions of an omniscient infinite deity on the subject of justice are, in themselves,
truth, though it would seem that they would merely correspond to truth until
they became the object of the divine will, whereupon they could become actual truth.
An all-knowing God’s opinion of justice could not fail to be a true opinion. Yet,
unless God then proceeded to will his opinion into being, it seems that it would remain
an opinion. Even afterwards, there would presumably remain the dichotomy
between the opinion in the almighty mind and the otherness called justice which God
just created, though they are nearly coeval. This is where we must abandon the topic,
for further pursuit requires asking whether Gods opine at all, which in turn mandates
positing an entire theology, which we shall not do here. This is probably a fatal omission,
for without an understanding of the holy and the divine, how it is and whether it
is, it may be impossible to identify justice, without which the ideal system of justice
will irrevocably fall beyond our intellectual reach. Certainly, we would need to address
this question. Petitioner and Respondent, however, have both instructed us to
pass over this issue. Therefore we shall move on. | Translation - Chinese
权力不是正义。
被上诉人的正义是权力的主张不能成立，正义由合法性定义的派生理论也不能成立。这些代表正义实际上是强者意见的观念，而我们已经看到意见不能是真理。意见可以符合事实，同样强者的法律可能正义，符合真正正义的话。但它们不是正义的尺度，道理同人不是万事万物尺度一样。人类的意见是相对的。真理不是。
因此，正义的本质不能是意见，既非个人亦非政府。政府的意见仍是意见而不导致真理，同个人没有两样。如果政府认为其法律正义，并没有使它们如此。可能正义或不义，但不是因为政府的意见才如此。相反，而是在于法律和真实正义之间是否一致。
有人甚至提出上帝的意见也是意见，考虑异教徒上帝争吵不休和诡计多端的有缺陷本质时，这似乎是更有说服力的一个立场。一个无所不知的无限的神关于正义的意见，其本身，是否为真，超出我们的调查范围，虽然它在变为神意的对象前似乎只符合真理，之后则能成为实在的真理。一个全知的上帝关于正义的意见不可能不是真实的意见。然而，除非上帝有意把他的意见变为存在，似乎它仍然是意见。即使以后，万能者头脑里的意见和刚被上帝创造的称为正义的另一物理所当然保持两分，虽然他们几乎同龄。这里我们必须放弃讨论，因为更进一步探讨需要询问上帝确实发表意见没有，这又需要假设一整套神学，这是本法庭不应做的。这或许是严重的疏忽，因为不理解圣者和神，它是否存在及存在方式，就不可能找到正义，那样的话，理想的正义制度将不可改变地为我们的理智所不及。当然，我们需要处理这个问题。不过，上诉者和被上诉人都已经指示我们忽略这个系争点。因此我们将继续审理。 | | English to Chinese: America On Trial | Source text - English
THAT LEGISLATION AND ADJUDICATION ARE DISTINGUISHABLE
AS OPPOSITES IN SEVERAL RESPECTS.
Respondent has claimed that our attempts to distinguish legislative from adjudicative
acts are moot, since in many cases these two types of action are not clearly
different and indeed sometimes appear nearly identical. We disagree, since even in
cases of striking similarity they are clearly distinct, as they contain opposite essences
and therefore cannot possibly be the same thing. Legislation and adjudication differ
spatially and temporally. Spatially, legislation applies to the whole, while adjudication
applies to a part. Temporally, legislation applies to future acts while adjudication
applies to past acts. Therefore, decisions which apply in the future to the whole are
solidly legislative in nature, while decisions that apply to the past of a part of the
whole are clearly adjudicative. Now, certainly the Respondent is correct that the definition
of the whole can be manipulated so as to clothe adjudications in legislative
costume, but such is trickery,80 and the manipulative parties will not be so easily able
to redefine the past as to make it appear to be the future, or describe the future so as to
deceive people into thinking it the past. Thus, temporal opposition is the clearest way
to distinguish legislation from adjudication. We note that the Respondent’s own constitution
makes use of these two distinguishing factors, for it forbids the Congress
from passing any bill of attainder or ex-post facto law. These forbidden ‘laws’ are in
fact adjudications, being in the one case too narrow, and in the other, applicable to the
past, precisely the two factors which distinguish adjudication from legislation.
Respondent complains, however, that while we first criticized Respondent for its
failure to see the underlying ratios which define legislative and adjudicative action, we
now abandon those distinctions and criticize them for failing to see a new, unrelated
distinction between these powers, namely past or future applicability to whole or partial
groups. Respondent asserts that it cannot be liable for failure to appreciate both, since as
this court has already stated, there cannot be more than one true definition of a thing.
We agree that there cannot be more than one true definition of any thing, but we do
not agree that we have suggested two rival methods of viewing legislation and adjudication.
The spatial and temporal measures which we have just described are the natural
and necessary consequences of the ratio formulae of distributive and corrective justice.
They are not rival definitions, but obvious attributes arising from the application of
geometric and arithmetic means respectively. By way of illustration, an instance of corrective
justice is impossible but upon known facts. It requires a comparison of existing
circumstances. These cannot be matters of futurity, but must rather be things already past, lest they cease to be knowable and comparable. Thus, corrective justice applies by
nature to past events and cannot conceivably apply to future events. On the contrary,
distributive justice looks to the future result of a contemplated distribution in order to
verify whether that future result will admit of geometric proportionality. Thus, distribution
naturally involves an estimation of matters of futurity. With regard to the scope of
an act, whether it falls upon the whole or a discrete part, these factors are also natural
consequences of the operation of distributive and corrective justice. A correction cannot
involve the whole, for corrections require two parties, one with an unwarranted surplus
and the other a resulting deficit. The whole is a single party, and it cannot be said to be
simultaneously in a state of surplus and deficit in regard to itself. Corrective justice, by
nature, must therefore apply to parts of the whole and not to the whole itself. Correspondingly,
distributive justice is by definition an enterprise which involves
consideration of the proportionate effects of any distribution on the whole. For example,
the law ‘all non-felons shall be able to vote’ involves the distribution of enfranchisement
to a part of the whole, the non-felons, based on their merit compared to the felons,
and together, these elements, felon and non-felon, comprise the whole. Thus, the distribution
contemplates the whole and attempts to make a proportionate distribution in light
of the true differences among parts of the whole. As we noted before, however, the
definition of the whole can be manipulated by those desiring to manufacture a specific
outcome, an hence this measure is of less evidentiary value than temporal characteristics
like the prospective or retrospective nature of a decision. | Translation - Chinese
立法和裁判在数方面对立因而可区分
被上诉人称我们试图区分立法与裁判行为无实际意义，因为许多情况下这两种行为差别不大并且常常确实看似几乎完全一样。我们并不这样认为，即使在极近似情况下区别也很明显，因为它们包含性质相反的要素因此不可能是一回事。立法和裁判在空间和时间上不同。空间上，立法适用于整体，而裁判适用于部分。时间上，立法适用于未来行为而裁判适用于过去行为。因此，适用于未来整体的决定在本质上完全是立法，而适用于过去整体一部分的决定在本质上显然是裁判。现在，当然被上诉人能篡改整体的定义使裁判穿上立法的外衣，但这是欺骗，80篡改者不会如法炮制重新定义过去使它看似未来，或描述未来使人们误以为是过去。因而，时间相反是区分立法与裁判最清晰的方式。我们指出被上诉人自己的宪法利用这两个区分因素，阻止国会通过任何褫夺公民权的法案或溯及既往的法律。这些被禁止的“法律”事实上是裁判，个案范围极其有限，而对其他（案件），则可适用于过去，这正是将裁判与立法区分开来的两个因素。
不过，被上诉人抱怨说我们先批评被上诉人没有看到界定立法和裁判活动的潜在比例，现在放弃那些区别又批评他们没看到新的、这些权力间不相关的区别，即过去或未来适用于整体或者部分集团。被上诉人声称不能对未察觉这两者承担负责，因为正如本法庭所说，对一个事物不能有多个真实定义。
我们同意任何事物不能有多个真实定义，但我们不同意我们建议的两种观察立法和裁判的方法矛盾。我们刚刚描述的空间和时间量度是分配和矫正正义比例公式的自然和必然的结果。他们不是矛盾的定义，而是因分别应用几何和算术平均数产生的明显属性。借助插图，除非有已知事实，矫正正义的实例不成立。它需要比较现存情形。这些不可能是未来之事，而必须是已经过去的事物，否则无法认识和比较。因此，矫正正义必定适用于过去事件而无法想象能适用于将来事件。相反，分配正义关心预期分配的未来结果以便证实未来结果是否会成几何比例。因而，分配自然地涉及对未来之事的估计。关于一行为的范围，不管它作用于整体还是分散的部分，这些因素也是分配和矫正正义起作用的自然结果。矫正不可能涉及整体，因为矫正需要双方当事人，一方当事人有过分的盈余而另一方因此背负赤字。整体只是一方，不能说本身而言同时处于盈余和赤字状态。矫正正义因此一定适用于整体的部分而非整体本身。而分配正义根据定义是涉及考量分配整体的比例效果的事业。例如，‘除重罪犯外人人皆有选举权’的法律涉及将公民权分配给整体的一部分，那些非重罪犯，把他们的品行与重罪犯相比较，而这些要素，重罪犯和非重罪犯，合起来构成整体。因此，分配考虑的是全部并尝试根据整体各部分间的真实差别为比例分配。不过，如我们前面指出的，整体的定义可能被那些期望制造特定结果的人篡改，因此与溯及将来（prospective）和有溯及既往（retrospective）等时间特性相比，这个衡量标准具有较小的证据价值。 |
More Less | | Property Law, PWB, surfish, Telecom_1 | | Master's degree - Peking University | | Years of translation experience: 14. Registered at ProZ.com: Aug 2001. Became a member: May 2004. | Chinese to English (Cambridge University (ESOL Examinations), verified)
English to Chinese (Cambridge University (ESOL Examinations), verified)
| | Heilongjiang Translation Association | | Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Frontpage, Indesign, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, PageMaker, Powerpoint, SDL TRADOS, SDLX, Wordfast | | http://www.YZY-Translation.com | | CV will be submitted upon request | | Zong Yang Yu endorses ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines (v1.0). | | Keywords: patent, copyright, law, manual, mechanical, electrical, computer, ISO documentation, woodworking machinery, rig floor, domestic appliances, air compressor, port operation, quality manual, annual report, business plan, financial statement, contract, bylaws, articles of association, notarized document, academic transcripts, operation manual, specification, standard.
Profile last updated
Dec 30, 2011 |
The translation workplace 
Expertise 
positive
