abduct中文的八卦，YOUTUBE和Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

【前港督彭定康錄影發言　促香港政府撤回修訂逃犯條例】

「我希望即使在這個最後階段，政府仍然可以退讓，撤回方案，不要再添亂。這修例不需要通過，亦不應該通過，香港應該繼續是一個有法治、有自由的社會，而不應該面對這些令人憂心的引渡修例。」

發言英文紀錄及中文翻譯：

Former Hong Kong Governor Lord Chris Patten video message Transcript

I know that this week in Hong Kong, thousands of people will be making their views clear, demonstrating against the proposals on extradition, which the government has put forward, extradition to China. It’s a proposal, or a set of proposals, which strike a terrible blow - I think - and so, I think to most people in Hong Kong and so does the international community, against the rule of law, against Hong Kong’s stability and security, against Hong Kong’s position as a great international trading hub. And the surprise is that the government in Hong Kong doesn’t seem to understand that. It does make you wonder sometimes who actually runs Hong Kong these days: is it the Hong Kong government or is it the joint liaison office acting on behalf of the communist regime in Beijing?

Why is this important? Well it’s the latest in a number of things that have happened in recent years which have tightened Beijing’s grip on Hong Kong, and which have profoundly worried people. I think for ten or a dozen years after 1997, things in Hong Kong went pretty well. Of course they could have gone better, I’m sorry that Beijing throttled the development of democracy, much against the promises that have been made earlier. But by and large, I think, Hong Kong remained a very free and successful society.

But ever since the regime in Beijing started to roll back Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and the developments that have taken place under Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji and Hu Jintao, and Wen Jiabao; ever since then, with the Party taking control over everything, cracking down on dissidents, cracking down on human rights, locking people up, incarcerating them in Xinjiang and so on. Ever since then, we know that Beijing has also been tightening its grip, or trying to, in Hong Kong. And I think that the latest proposals on extradition are an example of that.

Now a lot of very spurious arguments are put forward, it said that the present situation is a “loophole” which needs to be filled up - that’s absolute nonsense. People have known exactly why there shouldn’t be an extradition agreement with China for years, and many of the arguments put for the government’s proposals don’t actually pass the laugh-off-your-seat test. The argument that, well, it’s better to have an extradition treaty than to abduct people illegally from Hong Kong - are people really supposed to believe that?

Except for, but of course, Western democracies in Europe have extradition agreements with China, but they’re in a very different position to the position that Hong Kong is in. The reason why international chambers of commerce, why lawyers, why business around the world, why governments have raised their objections is very simple: because what these proposals do is to remove the firewall between Hong Kong’s rule of law and the idea of law - which prevails in Communist China - an idea of law where there aren’t any independent courts, where the courts and the security services and the party’s rules - which are, sometimes, pretty obscure - are rolled altogether. That’s why we’ve seen recently Canadian citizens that are locked up are taken as if it were hostage against things happening in Canada itself under the rule of law there. So it’s not surprising that people are so worried about what is happening.

I know that when people talk about the particular problem in relation to Taiwan, the leaders of the Hong Kong Bar Association over the last few years, I think a dozen of them, have put forward proposals which show how you could deal with that issue building on the existing common law.

So these proposals are bad for Hong Kong, they - I think - raise all sorts of questions which the government hasn’t even thought through, not least about Hong Kong’s economic importance and economic stability. We know very well that Hong Kong needs to be treated separately in economic and commercial matters from the rest of China. When I was governor a long time ago, I used to travel to Washington fairly regularly to argue the case for treating Hong Kong differently from, say, Shenzhen and Shanghai. But if you appear to be regarding Hong Kong from Beijing as though it was just another China city, then sooner or later, economic governments around the world, businesses around the world, when they’re looking even at things like the Belt and Road Initiative, they’re going to regard Hong Kong as just another part of China, and that would be really bad for the standard of living, for the quality of life in Hong Kong!

Above all, of course, if we go ahead, if the government goes ahead with this extradition agreement, it will cause unnecessary worries and anxieties in Hong Kong. That’s a really bad thing. I hope that even at this late stage, the government will back off and leave well alone. It doesn’t have to happen, it shouldn’t happen, and Hong Kong should carry on as a free society, under the rule of law, without having to worry about this extradition.

前港督彭定康錄影講話翻譯

我知道這星期在香港，成千上萬的人將會到街上遊行表達自己的意見，反對政府所提出將會容許引渡到中國的引渡修例建議。這是一項，或者應該說是一系列我及國際社會認為將會對香港的法治、香港的穩定和社會安全造成很大打擊的建議，它將會嚴重傷害香港作為一個國際貿易中心的地位。令人驚訝的是，香港政府似乎並不理解這一點。這確實令人懷疑這些日子究竟是誰在管治香港：是香港政府還是代表北京共產黨政權的中聯辦？

為甚麼這修例是這麼重要？這是近年來發生的一系列容許北京強行控制香港的事件之一，而這一直以來都讓人深感憂慮。我覺得在1997年之後的十年至十幾年，香港的情況進展尚算順利。當然，是本來可以更好，我很遺憾北京扼殺了香港民主的發展，違背了之前所作出的承諾。但總的來說，香港在那個時候仍然是一個非常自由和成功的社會。

但是，自北京政權開始推翻鄧小平的改革以及在江澤民、朱熔基、胡錦濤和溫家寶時期所推行的發展以後，共產黨控制着一切，打擊持不同政見的人，打擊人權，在新疆把人民關押等等。從那時起，我們就知道北京一直在試圖加緊控制香港。我認為最新的引渡建議就是一個例子。

現在香港政府提出了許多非常虛假的論點，它說目前的情況是展現了一個需要填補的「洞」，這絕對是胡說八道。大家多年來都確切地清楚知道不應該與中國達成引渡協議的原因。而政府提出的許多論點實際上也沒有一個不令你拍案大笑。政府認為制定引渡條約比從香港非法綁架人民更好，你認真覺得人們應該相信這個說法嗎？

當然他們又會說歐洲的西方民主國家與中國已經簽訂了引渡協議，但它們與香港根本處於完全不同的地位。國際商會、律師、商人及各國政府之所以提出反對意見的原因非常簡單：因為這些修例將會摧毀香港法治與中國共產黨的法治概念之間的防火牆。中國的法律觀念不包括任何獨立的法院，並把法院、國安部門以及黨的規則 （黨規則亦有時相當模糊）完全混在一起。這就是為甚麼我們最近看到被關起來的加拿大公民被用為人質，反對加拿大本身在她自己國家的法治下所發生的事情。因此，人們如此擔心這修例所帶來的影響並不奇怪。

我知道當人們都正在談到與台灣有關的問題之際，過去幾年的香港大律師公會領導人，應該是有十幾位，都已經提出意見，說明你如何就着香港現行的普通法來處理這個問題。

這些修例對香港不利，我認為這些修例所引發的疑問是甚至政府都沒有仔細考慮過的，尤其是對香港經濟重要性和經濟穩定性的影響。我們非常清楚在經濟和商業方面是需要把香港與中國其他地區分開對待。很久以前，當我還是港督的時候，我經常前往華盛頓游說對方看待香港的時候要跟對待深圳和上海之類的中國城市有所不同。但是如果以北京的角度看香港，將香港當為另一個普通中國城市，那麼世界各地的政府及企業將會視香港為中國的一部分（而不是特區），就算是看待「一帶一路」之類倡議時亦會是如此。這對香港的生活水平和生活質素都是非常不利的！

當然，最重要的是如果香港政府繼續硬推這些引渡修例，這將會在香港引起不必要的憂慮和焦慮。這些都是非常糟糕的事情。我希望即使在這個最後階段，政府仍然可以退讓，撤回方案，不要再添亂。這修例不需要通過，亦不應該通過，香港應該繼續是一個有法治、有自由的社會，而不應該面對這些令人憂心的引渡修例。

【前港督彭定康錄影發言　促香港政府撤回修訂逃犯條例】

「我希望即使在這個最後階段，政府仍然可以退讓，撤回方案，不要再添亂。這修例不需要通過，亦不應該通過，香港應該繼續是一個有法治、有自由的社會，而不應該面對這些令人憂心的引渡修例。」

發言英文紀錄及中文翻譯：

Former Hong Kong Governor Lord Chris Patten video message Transcript

I know that this week in Hong Kong, thousands of people will be making their views clear, demonstrating against the proposals on extradition, which the government has put forward, extradition to China. It’s a proposal, or a set of proposals, which strike a terrible blow - I think - and so, I think to most people in Hong Kong and so does the international community, against the rule of law, against Hong Kong’s stability and security, against Hong Kong’s position as a great international trading hub. And the surprise is that the government in Hong Kong doesn’t seem to understand that. It does make you wonder sometimes who actually runs Hong Kong these days: is it the Hong Kong government or is it the joint liaison office acting on behalf of the communist regime in Beijing?

Why is this important? Well it’s the latest in a number of things that have happened in recent years which have tightened Beijing’s grip on Hong Kong, and which have profoundly worried people. I think for ten or a dozen years after 1997, things in Hong Kong went pretty well. Of course they could have gone better, I’m sorry that Beijing throttled the development of democracy, much against the promises that have been made earlier. But by and large, I think, Hong Kong remained a very free and successful society.

But ever since the regime in Beijing started to roll back Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and the developments that have taken place under Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji and Hu Jintao, and Wen Jiabao; ever since then, with the Party taking control over everything, cracking down on dissidents, cracking down on human rights, locking people up, incarcerating them in Xinjiang and so on. Ever since then, we know that Beijing has also been tightening its grip, or trying to, in Hong Kong. And I think that the latest proposals on extradition are an example of that.

Now a lot of very spurious arguments are put forward, it said that the present situation is a “loophole” which needs to be filled up - that’s absolute nonsense. People have known exactly why there shouldn’t be an extradition agreement with China for years, and many of the arguments put for the government’s proposals don’t actually pass the laugh-off-your-seat test. The argument that, well, it’s better to have an extradition treaty than to abduct people illegally from Hong Kong - are people really supposed to believe that?

Except for, but of course, Western democracies in Europe have extradition agreements with China, but they’re in a very different position to the position that Hong Kong is in. The reason why international chambers of commerce, why lawyers, why business around the world, why governments have raised their objections is very simple: because what these proposals do is to remove the firewall between Hong Kong’s rule of law and the idea of law - which prevails in Communist China - an idea of law where there aren’t any independent courts, where the courts and the security services and the party’s rules - which are, sometimes, pretty obscure - are rolled altogether. That’s why we’ve seen recently Canadian citizens that are locked up are taken as if it were hostage against things happening in Canada itself under the rule of law there. So it’s not surprising that people are so worried about what is happening.

I know that when people talk about the particular problem in relation to Taiwan, the leaders of the Hong Kong Bar Association over the last few years, I think a dozen of them, have put forward proposals which show how you could deal with that issue building on the existing common law.

So these proposals are bad for Hong Kong, they - I think - raise all sorts of questions which the government hasn’t even thought through, not least about Hong Kong’s economic importance and economic stability. We know very well that Hong Kong needs to be treated separately in economic and commercial matters from the rest of China. When I was governor a long time ago, I used to travel to Washington fairly regularly to argue the case for treating Hong Kong differently from, say, Shenzhen and Shanghai. But if you appear to be regarding Hong Kong from Beijing as though it was just another China city, then sooner or later, economic governments around the world, businesses around the world, when they’re looking even at things like the Belt and Road Initiative, they’re going to regard Hong Kong as just another part of China, and that would be really bad for the standard of living, for the quality of life in Hong Kong!

Above all, of course, if we go ahead, if the government goes ahead with this extradition agreement, it will cause unnecessary worries and anxieties in Hong Kong. That’s a really bad thing. I hope that even at this late stage, the government will back off and leave well alone. It doesn’t have to happen, it shouldn’t happen, and Hong Kong should carry on as a free society, under the rule of law, without having to worry about this extradition.

前港督彭定康錄影講話翻譯

我知道這星期在香港，成千上萬的人將會到街上遊行表達自己的意見，反對政府所提出將會容許引渡到中國的引渡修例建議。這是一項，或者應該說是一系列我及國際社會認為將會對香港的法治、香港的穩定和社會安全造成很大打擊的建議，它將會嚴重傷害香港作為一個國際貿易中心的地位。令人驚訝的是，香港政府似乎並不理解這一點。這確實令人懷疑這些日子究竟是誰在管治香港：是香港政府還是代表北京共產黨政權的中聯辦？

為甚麼這修例是這麼重要？這是近年來發生的一系列容許北京強行控制香港的事件之一，而這一直以來都讓人深感憂慮。我覺得在1997年之後的十年至十幾年，香港的情況進展尚算順利。當然，是本來可以更好，我很遺憾北京扼殺了香港民主的發展，違背了之前所作出的承諾。但總的來說，香港在那個時候仍然是一個非常自由和成功的社會。

但是，自北京政權開始推翻鄧小平的改革以及在江澤民、朱熔基、胡錦濤和溫家寶時期所推行的發展以後，共產黨控制着一切，打擊持不同政見的人，打擊人權，在新疆把人民關押等等。從那時起，我們就知道北京一直在試圖加緊控制香港。我認為最新的引渡建議就是一個例子。

現在香港政府提出了許多非常虛假的論點，它說目前的情況是展現了一個需要填補的「洞」，這絕對是胡說八道。大家多年來都確切地清楚知道不應該與中國達成引渡協議的原因。而政府提出的許多論點實際上也沒有一個不令你拍案大笑。政府認為制定引渡條約比從香港非法綁架人民更好，你認真覺得人們應該相信這個說法嗎？

當然他們又會說歐洲的西方民主國家與中國已經簽訂了引渡協議，但它們與香港根本處於完全不同的地位。國際商會、律師、商人及各國政府之所以提出反對意見的原因非常簡單：因為這些修例將會摧毀香港法治與中國共產黨的法治概念之間的防火牆。中國的法律觀念不包括任何獨立的法院，並把法院、國安部門以及黨的規則 （黨規則亦有時相當模糊）完全混在一起。這就是為甚麼我們最近看到被關起來的加拿大公民被用為人質，反對加拿大本身在她自己國家的法治下所發生的事情。因此，人們如此擔心這修例所帶來的影響並不奇怪。

我知道當人們都正在談到與台灣有關的問題之際，過去幾年的香港大律師公會領導人，應該是有十幾位，都已經提出意見，說明你如何就着香港現行的普通法來處理這個問題。

這些修例對香港不利，我認為這些修例所引發的疑問是甚至政府都沒有仔細考慮過的，尤其是對香港經濟重要性和經濟穩定性的影響。我們非常清楚在經濟和商業方面是需要把香港與中國其他地區分開對待。很久以前，當我還是港督的時候，我經常前往華盛頓游說對方看待香港的時候要跟對待深圳和上海之類的中國城市有所不同。但是如果以北京的角度看香港，將香港當為另一個普通中國城市，那麼世界各地的政府及企業將會視香港為中國的一部分（而不是特區），就算是看待「一帶一路」之類倡議時亦會是如此。這對香港的生活水平和生活質素都是非常不利的！

當然，最重要的是如果香港政府繼續硬推這些引渡修例，這將會在香港引起不必要的憂慮和焦慮。這些都是非常糟糕的事情。我希望即使在這個最後階段，政府仍然可以退讓，撤回方案，不要再添亂。這修例不需要通過，亦不應該通過，香港應該繼續是一個有法治、有自由的社會，而不應該面對這些令人憂心的引渡修例。

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