今天意外的繼續在Sex On My Desk看到上次那篇網路笑話的續集。本來是興沖沖想要翻譯成中文，讓大家在來笑一下，結果我自己都不太笑得出來，但是可惡的是，就好像看著八點檔連續劇，一但看了，就算再難看嘴裡再怎麼罵，就是會繼續看下去，就像我奶奶說的，現在在看的那齣台語連續劇拖戲拖的很誇張，但是還是得要看，因為沒看到壞人遭報應就是不甘心。我想我今天在翻這一篇也是類似的心態吧! 雖然不好笑，但是頭都洗下去了，不洗完也不行!
比起來我還覺得Sex On My Desk的部落格主人的評語比較好笑，部落格文章標題叫”Would These Two Just Do It Already?” 還說期待在紐約時報的Wedding section (在美國各大報都會有個版面讓大家在上面公佈喜訊，記得SATC裡面的Charlotte對於她在Wedding Section的照片多吹毛求疵嗎?)看到有關他們的消息!
這篇文章超級難翻譯的原因是，像Sex On My Desk裡面說的，這位折舊資產女士這次可是扛著字典回來打這場筆戰的。同時很多詞也很難翻譯成中文，以下的翻譯我已經盡了我最大的努力，我果然中文程度差，英文更差啊! 如果有其他能人異士對於內文有更好的翻法，歡迎指正賜教。
----------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
I must confess that I was somewhat taken aback upon reading your email. Indeed, it has taken some time for me to sufficiently recuperate from my surprise. Lest your confidence quickly inflate for little reason (as we know is the predisposition for Wall St. types), allow me to hasten to reassure you that the source of my surprise was neither your candor nor the accuracy of your perception. Indeed, it is your "claimed" success in light of your poor grasp of economics which has me baffled. If the standards required to meet with financial success on Wall St. have sunk so low, perhaps I should indeed "make my own money", except for the fact that the effort/reward ratio is far too high for my liking - especially when so many of your ilk have displayed a far more cogent grasp of market realities than you have.
我必須承認我在閱讀您的來信時毫無心理準備。的確，我花了一些時間才完全的從震驚中恢復過來。爲了避免你因為一點小理由就自信過度膨脹(就像我們所知道的典型華爾街特質)，我趕緊的來向你保證我的震驚既不是來自於你的坦率，也不是來自你洞察力的精確。沒錯，讓我困惑的是你所「宣稱」的成就，怎麼會你對於經濟學的認知如此淺薄。如果現在在華爾街要達成財務上的成就，標準已經降到這麼低的話，或許我真的應該「賺自己的錢」，只是努力除以回饋的比例遠超過我想要的 – 特別是和你比起來，許多你的同類還是展示了對市場現況有更切實的了解。
By now you are likely scratching your ever-vanishing hairline in confusion, so allow me to elaborate, dear man. To build some credibility I will tell you a bit more about yourself. Though you did not mention the details of your occupation, it is clear that you are an investment banker and not a trader, as any good trader would understand that human courtships are based upon a semi-efficient open market, and not an investment banking cartel. However, your inability to grasp the realities of the dating market is not surprising, given that you have successfully employed the tools of collusion and market manipulation rather that true acumen in your supposed wealth generation.
現在你非常可能正困惑的抓著你那逐漸在消失的髮線，所以，親愛的男人，請容許我再繼續說明。為了讓我更有說服力，我會再多介紹我自己一點。雖然你並沒有提到你的職業細節，但很明顯的，你是個投資銀行家，而不是一個交易員，因為任何好的交易員都會了解，人類的求偶都是基於一個半效率公開市場，而不是一個投資銀行協議。不過你無法了解約會市場的模式並不那麼令人驚訝，因為你應該一向都使用共謀跟操控市場的手段，而不像你的富有階級利用應有的聰明跟敏銳。
If your grasp of finance were not a minority partner with your ego, you would realize that the "outflows" associated with my depreciating "assets" are quite certain, and therefore subject to a low discount rate when determining their present value. In addition, though your concept of economics evidentially failed to move past the 1950s, advancement in plastic surgery is not subject to the same limitation. Thus, with some additional capital expenditure, the overall lifetime of "outflows" generated by these assets is greatly increased. Sad that Ashton Kutcher has demonstrated understanding of the female asset class which you, in all of your financial "wisdom", have not.
如果你對金融的理解和你的自我比起來，並不只是個不具影響力的合夥人的話，你應該會明白，和我這個折舊「資產」相關的「支出」其實是可以掌握的，所以可以用一個較低的折現率來估算現值。另外，你的經濟觀念也不符合1950年之後的狀況，整形手術的進步已經不再受同樣的限制。所以，再加上一些額外資本支出，資產的使用期限已經被大大的延長了。令人惋惜的是連Ashton Kutcher* 都親身示範了他對女性資產的了解，而你以你所擁有的財務「智慧」卻還是無法明瞭。
*Ashton Kutcher就是跟黛咪摩兒在一起的那個年輕帥哥
You, on the other hand, are, given the uncertainty of the Wall St. job market, more of an inflation-indexed junk bond with an underwater nested call option. Though you may argue that you are more of an equity investment, my monetary minimums required from you do not change, and if you are unable to pay them, I will liquidate you without the benefit of a chapter 11, just as you would me.
你在另一方面，基於華爾街就業市場的不確定性，比較像是個連結通膨指數還附水面下買權的垃圾債券。或許你會想要爭辯你比較像是個股票投資，我對你的最低貨幣需求是固定的，一旦你無法支付，我可以將你變現而不會有破產法的保護，就像假使你是我的話。
Because your outflows are so much more uncertain with respect to mine, I require additional compensation in the form of a underwater nested call option on your future assets. I say underwater because, even taking into account the value of your junk bond coupon payment to me, the value of my "outflow" is in excess of the market price of your equity (which is quite low due to its riskiness associated with your poor grasp of finance and my existing claim upon your junk bond coupon).
因為你的支出和我的相較起來，不確定性高多了，所以我需要對你未來的資產有買權做額外的補償。我稱呼它為水面下的，因為就算把你垃圾債券的配息考慮進去，我的「支出」的價值還是高於你這隻股票的市價(市價很低是在於你對金融的差勁理解和我對垃圾債券配息已擁有的求償權)。
I must thank you though for raising the question, despite the reputation cost of subjecting your weak logic to such widespread scrutiny. This took either considerable courage or ignorance on your part- and we'll give you the benefit of doubt, just this once. My current boyfriend (a trader who lives in Central Park West, of course) and I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your response and we wish you the best of luck in your unhappy pursuit of that elusive market inefficiency.
我必須要謝謝你提出這個問題，儘管沒有說服力的邏輯在眾人仔細檢驗下造成了你名譽上的損失。這需要你很大的勇氣，或是愚昧，在這次我們就讓你有懷疑的機會。我的現任男友(一個當然是住在中央公園西區的交易員)和我都很享受討論你的回覆。祝你好運，特別對於在這個難以理解不完全有效率市場裡的不快樂工作。
----------------------------------------
Did her boyfriend also enjoy her initial post? Is that how they met? (這句話是Sex On My Desk的作者問的，因為我也很好奇，所以把這句話留下來了…)
翻完這篇文章之後，其實我反倒對這位女士的邏輯不太茍同。感覺像是學生時代在BBS看人家打筆戰，因為不是面對面的辯論，所以大家常會片面解釋或是很複雜的字詞堆砌到搞不清楚要說的重點是什麼。這位折舊資產女士宣稱垃圾債券男士對於經濟或是金融方面的知識不夠，是基於1. 他錯誤的期待這會是個強勢效率或完全有效率的市場 2. 他沒有計算到額外的資本支出可以大大增加資產的價值 3. 他太高估了自己的價值.
我不太認為這三點可以證明我們的垃圾債券男士缺乏正確的經濟和金融常識，但我到覺得這三點可以證明他很有可能是個投資銀行家。當這些投資銀行在做併購案的時候，他的目的就是要幫賣方儘量哄抬本身資產的價值，讓有興趣的買方願意多付點錢，如果他是買方的顧問，他就會盡可能的在各樣財務資料上找理由壓低賣方資產的價值，好讓買方可以便宜買到資產。對，他們習慣以共謀跟操控市場來拿到他們所想要的價錢。
看到最後我們的折舊債券小姐的現任男友是個trader(交易員)，不禁爲她捏把冷汗。基本上trader他們只做trade，而不長期持有的。若真的想要走Buy and Hold路線的話，還是去找Pension Fund Manager比較有機會吧!
source :http://sexonmydesk.ivillage.com/love/2007/10/would_these_two_just_do_it_alr.html
比起來我還覺得Sex On My Desk的部落格主人的評語比較好笑，部落格文章標題叫”Would These Two Just Do It Already?” 還說期待在紐約時報的Wedding section (在美國各大報都會有個版面讓大家在上面公佈喜訊，記得SATC裡面的Charlotte對於她在Wedding Section的照片多吹毛求疵嗎?)看到有關他們的消息!
這篇文章超級難翻譯的原因是，像Sex On My Desk裡面說的，這位折舊資產女士這次可是扛著字典回來打這場筆戰的。同時很多詞也很難翻譯成中文，以下的翻譯我已經盡了我最大的努力，我果然中文程度差，英文更差啊! 如果有其他能人異士對於內文有更好的翻法，歡迎指正賜教。
----------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
I must confess that I was somewhat taken aback upon reading your email. Indeed, it has taken some time for me to sufficiently recuperate from my surprise. Lest your confidence quickly inflate for little reason (as we know is the predisposition for Wall St. types), allow me to hasten to reassure you that the source of my surprise was neither your candor nor the accuracy of your perception. Indeed, it is your "claimed" success in light of your poor grasp of economics which has me baffled. If the standards required to meet with financial success on Wall St. have sunk so low, perhaps I should indeed "make my own money", except for the fact that the effort/reward ratio is far too high for my liking - especially when so many of your ilk have displayed a far more cogent grasp of market realities than you have.
我必須承認我在閱讀您的來信時毫無心理準備。的確，我花了一些時間才完全的從震驚中恢復過來。爲了避免你因為一點小理由就自信過度膨脹(就像我們所知道的典型華爾街特質)，我趕緊的來向你保證我的震驚既不是來自於你的坦率，也不是來自你洞察力的精確。沒錯，讓我困惑的是你所「宣稱」的成就，怎麼會你對於經濟學的認知如此淺薄。如果現在在華爾街要達成財務上的成就，標準已經降到這麼低的話，或許我真的應該「賺自己的錢」，只是努力除以回饋的比例遠超過我想要的 – 特別是和你比起來，許多你的同類還是展示了對市場現況有更切實的了解。
By now you are likely scratching your ever-vanishing hairline in confusion, so allow me to elaborate, dear man. To build some credibility I will tell you a bit more about yourself. Though you did not mention the details of your occupation, it is clear that you are an investment banker and not a trader, as any good trader would understand that human courtships are based upon a semi-efficient open market, and not an investment banking cartel. However, your inability to grasp the realities of the dating market is not surprising, given that you have successfully employed the tools of collusion and market manipulation rather that true acumen in your supposed wealth generation.
現在你非常可能正困惑的抓著你那逐漸在消失的髮線，所以，親愛的男人，請容許我再繼續說明。為了讓我更有說服力，我會再多介紹我自己一點。雖然你並沒有提到你的職業細節，但很明顯的，你是個投資銀行家，而不是一個交易員，因為任何好的交易員都會了解，人類的求偶都是基於一個半效率公開市場，而不是一個投資銀行協議。不過你無法了解約會市場的模式並不那麼令人驚訝，因為你應該一向都使用共謀跟操控市場的手段，而不像你的富有階級利用應有的聰明跟敏銳。
If your grasp of finance were not a minority partner with your ego, you would realize that the "outflows" associated with my depreciating "assets" are quite certain, and therefore subject to a low discount rate when determining their present value. In addition, though your concept of economics evidentially failed to move past the 1950s, advancement in plastic surgery is not subject to the same limitation. Thus, with some additional capital expenditure, the overall lifetime of "outflows" generated by these assets is greatly increased. Sad that Ashton Kutcher has demonstrated understanding of the female asset class which you, in all of your financial "wisdom", have not.
如果你對金融的理解和你的自我比起來，並不只是個不具影響力的合夥人的話，你應該會明白，和我這個折舊「資產」相關的「支出」其實是可以掌握的，所以可以用一個較低的折現率來估算現值。另外，你的經濟觀念也不符合1950年之後的狀況，整形手術的進步已經不再受同樣的限制。所以，再加上一些額外資本支出，資產的使用期限已經被大大的延長了。令人惋惜的是連Ashton Kutcher* 都親身示範了他對女性資產的了解，而你以你所擁有的財務「智慧」卻還是無法明瞭。
*Ashton Kutcher就是跟黛咪摩兒在一起的那個年輕帥哥
You, on the other hand, are, given the uncertainty of the Wall St. job market, more of an inflation-indexed junk bond with an underwater nested call option. Though you may argue that you are more of an equity investment, my monetary minimums required from you do not change, and if you are unable to pay them, I will liquidate you without the benefit of a chapter 11, just as you would me.
你在另一方面，基於華爾街就業市場的不確定性，比較像是個連結通膨指數還附水面下買權的垃圾債券。或許你會想要爭辯你比較像是個股票投資，我對你的最低貨幣需求是固定的，一旦你無法支付，我可以將你變現而不會有破產法的保護，就像假使你是我的話。
Because your outflows are so much more uncertain with respect to mine, I require additional compensation in the form of a underwater nested call option on your future assets. I say underwater because, even taking into account the value of your junk bond coupon payment to me, the value of my "outflow" is in excess of the market price of your equity (which is quite low due to its riskiness associated with your poor grasp of finance and my existing claim upon your junk bond coupon).
因為你的支出和我的相較起來，不確定性高多了，所以我需要對你未來的資產有買權做額外的補償。我稱呼它為水面下的，因為就算把你垃圾債券的配息考慮進去，我的「支出」的價值還是高於你這隻股票的市價(市價很低是在於你對金融的差勁理解和我對垃圾債券配息已擁有的求償權)。
I must thank you though for raising the question, despite the reputation cost of subjecting your weak logic to such widespread scrutiny. This took either considerable courage or ignorance on your part- and we'll give you the benefit of doubt, just this once. My current boyfriend (a trader who lives in Central Park West, of course) and I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your response and we wish you the best of luck in your unhappy pursuit of that elusive market inefficiency.
我必須要謝謝你提出這個問題，儘管沒有說服力的邏輯在眾人仔細檢驗下造成了你名譽上的損失。這需要你很大的勇氣，或是愚昧，在這次我們就讓你有懷疑的機會。我的現任男友(一個當然是住在中央公園西區的交易員)和我都很享受討論你的回覆。祝你好運，特別對於在這個難以理解不完全有效率市場裡的不快樂工作。
----------------------------------------
Did her boyfriend also enjoy her initial post? Is that how they met? (這句話是Sex On My Desk的作者問的，因為我也很好奇，所以把這句話留下來了…)
翻完這篇文章之後，其實我反倒對這位女士的邏輯不太茍同。感覺像是學生時代在BBS看人家打筆戰，因為不是面對面的辯論，所以大家常會片面解釋或是很複雜的字詞堆砌到搞不清楚要說的重點是什麼。這位折舊資產女士宣稱垃圾債券男士對於經濟或是金融方面的知識不夠，是基於1. 他錯誤的期待這會是個強勢效率或完全有效率的市場 2. 他沒有計算到額外的資本支出可以大大增加資產的價值 3. 他太高估了自己的價值.
我不太認為這三點可以證明我們的垃圾債券男士缺乏正確的經濟和金融常識，但我到覺得這三點可以證明他很有可能是個投資銀行家。當這些投資銀行在做併購案的時候，他的目的就是要幫賣方儘量哄抬本身資產的價值，讓有興趣的買方願意多付點錢，如果他是買方的顧問，他就會盡可能的在各樣財務資料上找理由壓低賣方資產的價值，好讓買方可以便宜買到資產。對，他們習慣以共謀跟操控市場來拿到他們所想要的價錢。
看到最後我們的折舊債券小姐的現任男友是個trader(交易員)，不禁爲她捏把冷汗。基本上trader他們只做trade，而不長期持有的。若真的想要走Buy and Hold路線的話，還是去找Pension Fund Manager比較有機會吧!
source :http://sexonmydesk.ivillage.com/love/2007/10/would_these_two_just_do_it_alr.html
全站熱搜
留言列表
