一、英譯中：請將下列英文翻譯成中文 According to historians, pandemics typically have two types of endings: the medical, which occurs when the incidence and death rates plummet, and the social, when the epidemic of fear about the disease wanes. In other words, an end can occur not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease. A Harvard historian said something similar was happening with the current pandemic situation around the world: “As we have seen in the debate about opening the economy, many questions about the so-called end are determined not by medical and public health data but by sociopolitical processes.” Endings “are very, very messy,” said another historian. “Looking back, we have a weak narrative. For whom does the epidemic end, and who gets to say?”

Bryan Chen

詳解 #4311050

2020/10/11

根據歷史學家所言，全球疫情通常有兩種結果: 一種是當醫學上發生的案件數和死亡率急遽下滑，一種是當社會上對於疾病的流行性恐慌消退。換言之，可能的結果是因為人們逐漸厭倦了恐慌的心態於是學會與疾病相處，而不是因為疾病的消失。一位哈佛歷史學家曾說全球正在經歷與目前疫情類似的事情:「正如同我們所目睹的經濟開放爭論，對於宣稱的結果所產生的很多疑問取決於社會政治進程，而不是醫學和公衛的數據。」另一位歷史學家說結果:「是非常非常混亂的。回頭看，我們擁有的話語權很薄弱。疫情的結束由誰終結，又由誰來述說?」

樓上大致翻得不錯，但是我以為，sociopolitical processes 應該翻成"社會政治進程"而不是"社會政治因素"，因素的原文是factor。而原文裡倒數第三行的Endings放在引號之外是因為那位歷史學家省略，沒有在原話提及，所以我認為，翻譯的"結果"

也應該放在引號之外。如果放到前一位哈佛歷史學家的引得話語裡或像是前一人所說，我認為不太妥當。而最後一行，who gets to say? 是接續前面的narrative，有種誰掌握了話語權的意思，所以如果直譯作誰能說呢就又是另一個意思了(who can say/ who knows)

因為個人覺得大流行病(pandemic)很拗口，所以我用習慣上的全球疫情來翻。