Death is inevitable, but not disease. Bacteria and viruses are no mean adversaries, nor are they easily defeated. (46)
If we fail to be watchful or to protect those most at risk, a public-health catastrophe is inevitable, and yet somewhere within the span of the last thirty years the idea of the common good has disappeared from our national consciousness, giving way to the misconception that we no longer need concern ourselves with the welfare of our fellow citizens.
It is a dangerous conceit, and it leads us toward a future infected with unprecedented and unnecessary disease.
A public-health system is only as strong as its weakest link; an epidemic enforces, in the most rigorous fashion, the American credo that all men are created equal. (47)
If we allow one segment of our society to suffer and perish from preventable diseases, little stands in the way of collective doom.
Yet today, 44 million people in the United States are without health insurance; those who can afford to pay for it generally receive inferior treatment, despite the fact that Americans spend $1.4 trillion annually for their health care. Prevention becomes secondary to simply keeping people alive. (48)
We must not simply concern ourselves with the state of American public health; as distances collapse and human populations grow ever more mobile, so also new and deadly diseases find their way across deserts and oceans.
Ironically, the medical revolutions of the twentieth century have contributed to our over-confident neglect of the public-health infrastructure. (49)
We spend vast sums to lengthen the lives of terminally ill patients by a few days and refuse to make modest investments that would prevent millions of needless illnesses and death.
The Americans we know pay too much for their health care, and compared with other countries we receive a very poor return on our investment. The reason are many, but they are not hard to understand: in essence, we have tended historically to view health care as a commodity like any other. But health is not a product; it is a public good. The evidence is clear even when viewed through the reductive lens of purely economic self-interest, market-based medicine is a failure. Healing people after they fall ill is vastly more expensive than preventing the illness in the first place. (50)
Yet policymakers have consistently preferred the most expensive and least efficient models of health care, proving once again that the supporters of privatization are motivated not by practical economics but by an ideology that is little more than a mask concealing the most irrational self-interest.
【答案解析】解析:此题目句子较长,结构复杂,有一个伴随状语,此伴随状语中还有一个同位语从句。参考译文将该句子译成了两个独立的句子。首先,fail to be watchful不能直译为"不警惕",因为"不警惕"不宜跟后面的宾语"人群"搭配。因此,不防反话正说,把"不警惕"按其语义改为"忽视"以与宾语"人群"搭配。另外,译文没有将giving way to译为"(公共福祉这个概念)让位给…",而译为"取而代之的是…",突出了目前错误概念的强势地位,符合整篇文章的内容。译文将同位语从句用破折号引导,简洁明了。考查点:长句子的分拆方法。
【答案解析】解析:此题目的重点在于对后半句的理解和翻译。后半句是否定句,原文little stands in the way of是一种打比方的说法,表示"没有什么可以阻挡集体性灾难(的发生/来临)",如果这样直译,虽符合英文原句的结构和否定性语义,但是读起来不通顺。这里,反话正说就是一个很好的译法,即"集体性(卫生)灾难不可避免"。考查点:英语比喻句的理解和翻译。
【答案解析】解析:此题目的难点在于两个比喻表示法的翻译。一个比喻是distances collapse,另一个为new and deadly diseases find their way across deserts and oceans.虽然两个都是比喻用法,翻译时却应该不同对待。第一个比喻如果直接为"距离消失了/没有了/不存在了"则有点不自然。从文章的整体意义来看,这里的distance collapse只是指各种交通方式缩短了各地的距离,并不指通讯方式所带来的便利,因此,完全可以义译为"交通便捷",即符合整体意思,又可以合后半句中的mobile,deserts,oceans相呼应。第二个比喻完全可以直译,因为汉语中也常常以拟人的方法比喻疾病。考查点:英语不同比喻句的不同翻译处理。
【答案解析】解析:此题目的难点在定语从句的翻译。从句法上分析,定语从句that would prevent millions of need- less illnesses and death是修饰其先行词modest investments。如果将该部分翻译成前置定语"而不愿意投入可以预防上百万的病症和死亡的适量的经费",明显,定语太长,不通顺。从整个句子语义分析,这句定语从句也可以表示为投入经费的目的,因此,可以泽为"…来预防…"。另外,动词lengthen一词译为"拖延"比直译为"延长"能突显出原文作者对只注重治疗而不注重预防的政策的强烈反对,更符合文章整体意思。考查点:定语从句的翻译。
【答案解析】解析:此题目较长,其中包含一个伴随状语和一个定语从句。这里,我们把伴随状语翻译成独立的句子,并用"这一点"做句子主语,保持前后语义连贯性。另外,把定语从句也翻译独立的句子,用"这种意识形态"做主语。这样,一个英文长句子就被翻译成了三个独立的句子,符合汉语以读义为主,短句多的特点。最后,形容词词组the most irrational (self-interest)的翻译也值得注意。Irrational具有是否定意义的形容词翻译为"无理性的/失去理性的"却不适合与程度副词"最"搭配。因此,我们再一次用反话正说的方法,将否定意义"最无理性的/失去理性的"变换为"最疯狂的"。考查点:英语长句子拆分处理及翻译,伴随状语、定语从句的处理技巧。