讀《FT·金融時報》學英語：把話說好，沒你想得那么簡單

凱拉韋：為我們新辦的社會企業(yè)取名和寫簡介讓我大費周章，作為記者我想怎么寫就怎么寫，創(chuàng)業(yè)時卻不得不學會妥協(xié)。

When handing out my annual guff awards last week I wrote something I'd now like to retract.I said clear language in business was perfectly possible if you tried hard enough.
前些天在頒發(fā)“年度廢話獎”時我寫過一些話，現(xiàn)在我想收回。我寫了類似這樣的話：在商界如果你下足功夫，就完全有可能把話講明白。

I now find it's not as simple as that.Last autumn, I co-founded a social enterprise designed to get people like me to retrain as teachers.Teach Last, I wanted to call it, which I thought both clear and comic.No, no, no, was the response from practically everyone.Teach Last, they insisted, sounded as if the crematorium was the next stop, and so I backed down, and settled on the least worst alternative, Now Teach.
現(xiàn)在我發(fā)現(xiàn)沒那么簡單。去年秋天，我和別人一同創(chuàng)立了一家社會企業(yè)，想要將一些像我這樣的人重新培訓成教師。原本我想管它叫，Teach Last（終于去教書），我覺得這個名字既直白又風趣。然而，幾乎所有人的反應(yīng)都是，別，別，別。他們堅持認為，Teach Last，聽起來好像之后就要去死一樣，于是我只好作罷，最后選了一個沒那么糟的名字，Now Teach（現(xiàn)在教書吧）。

Two words into the new project I'd learnt my first lesson.As a journalist I write whatever I like and if I upset someone, well, that's part of the job.But when you are setting something up compromise has to be part of it — and compromise hardly ever goes with sharp language.It doesn't matter if the words look pretty.If they alienate anyone, you have to fudge them.
為新事業(yè)起名給我上了第一堂課。作為一名記者我想怎么寫就怎么寫，如果得罪了誰，呃，那也是工作的一部分。但創(chuàng)業(yè)時卻不得不學會妥協(xié)——而妥協(xié)和言辭犀利幾乎永遠不可兼得。話說得是不是漂亮并不重要。假如有人不受用，你就得換個說法。

Name chosen, the next task was to write the copy for the Now Teach website.This, I confidently told everyone, was what I was good at.Long ago I worked out a two-step process to composition: you decide what you want to say and then you say it, using mainly words of one syllable.
選好名字后，就該給Now Teach的網(wǎng)站寫文案了。我自信地告訴每個人，這是我的強項。很久以前，我研究出一套兩步創(chuàng)作法：想好要說什么再下筆，然后說得簡單明了一些。

In this case what I wanted to say was easy: Now Teach exists to persuade people over 45 who are fed up with their swanky careers at McKinsey, for instance, to start again as teachers.But even I could see that this wouldn't do.First, you can't slag off McKinsey on a charity website.Neither can you specify age, as it is illegal.But how else to get across the idea that you are looking for people who are getting on a bit? In conversation I had been referring to them as “oldies”, but no one apart from me thought this funny.“Mature” is OK for cheddar, but not otherwise; “seasoned” is fine for wood or a lamb stew, but not for humans.“Older” is hopeless as it has come to be a euphemism for ancient — if you google it, you are led straight to articles about colostomy bags and care home closures.
既然如此我想說的很簡單：Now Teach旨在說服已然厭倦了在麥肯錫(McKinsey)這種大企業(yè)從事光鮮職業(yè)的45歲以上的人改行當老師。但即便是這個理兒，話也不能這么說。首先，你沒法在一個慈善網(wǎng)站上對麥肯錫說三道四。你也不能規(guī)定具體歲數(shù)，因為這不合法。但不這么說別人又怎么知道你要找的是上了年紀的人呢？聊天時我管他們叫“老伙計”，但除了我自己沒人覺得這很風趣。“成熟”用來形容干酪還行，要說別的就免了；“老到”(seasoned)用來描述風干的木材或者加了調(diào)料的燉羊肉還可以，拿來說人就算了。更別想用“年長”了，因為這個詞都變成年老的委婉說法了——如果你谷歌(google)一下，直接就能搜出關(guān)于結(jié)腸造口袋和養(yǎng)老院倒閉的文章。

Another possibility (suggested by a former management consultant) was “late-stage career-changers”, which has the advantage of being inoffensive, but the disadvantage of making me feel restive before I'd even read to the end of it.
另一個也許派得上用場的詞（來自一位前管理咨詢師的建議）是“后期轉(zhuǎn)行者”，這個詞好就好在不怎么傷人，但缺點是我還沒讀完它就不耐煩了。

With heavy heart, we settled for “experienced”, which we initially bolstered by adding “professionals”.Only then my inner Jane Austen revolted, as in her book only lawyers, doctors and clerics qualify.In the end we have gone for another dread word: “leaders”, which is not only overused but rules me out.I have never led anyone.
懷著沉重的心情，我們決定采用“有經(jīng)驗的”一詞，起初我們還在其后加上了“專業(yè)人士們”來充實它。可就在那時我內(nèi)心的簡·奧斯汀(Jane Austen)抗議了，因為這么一來，在她書里就只有律師、醫(yī)生和牧師才夠格了。后來我們又選了另一個令人生畏的詞：“領(lǐng)導者們”，這個詞不僅被用濫了而且還把我給排除了。我壓根就沒領(lǐng)導過誰。

The final task was to convey quality — we weren't looking for any old “experienced leader” but for ones who would be absolute corkers as teachers.The word corker, delightful though it is, doesn't work on a website, yet inflation in language has been so rampant that none of the old words work any more.
最后需要申明我們的用人標準——我們要找的不是任何年長的“有經(jīng)驗的領(lǐng)導者”而是那些將會成為杰出教師的人。杰出者，這個詞雖然賞心悅目，但卻不適用于網(wǎng)站，語言的浮夸之風現(xiàn)已大行其道，從前的詞都不管用了。

“Good” now means bad, and “great” means mediocre.Even “extraordinary” is now workaday: the word appears nearly 3m times on LinkedIn.The obvious answer is to avoid adjectives, only if you do, the result is too flat, which won't do if you are trying to sell yourself.So we went for “formidable”, and were almost all set, until along came an expert who said our words might have pleased us, but they would fail to impress Google's search algorithms.It was back to the drawing board.
現(xiàn)如今“好”就是不好，而“好極了”就是一般般。甚至“非同凡響”也就表示馬馬虎虎：這個詞在領(lǐng)英上已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)過近三百萬次了。解決這個問題的辦法顯而易見，就是避免使用形容詞，只是效果未免太平淡，而要想推銷自己你就不會這么干。于是我們想出了“才華驚人”一詞，并且差不多就要這么定了，卻有一位專家指出或許我們對這些詞很滿意，但它們在谷歌的搜索算法那里討不了好。我們只好重新想。

So now when I search, the first result says: “Now Teach is a teacher training programme for experienced career changers looking to reapply their skills to the classroom.” As a writer I dislike it.George Orwell would have had a fit.But then he didn't have to deal with search engines.And he was as much trying to cause offence as to avoid it.
所以現(xiàn)在我搜索Now Teach，第一條結(jié)果是：“Now Teach是一個教師培訓計劃，面向經(jīng)驗豐富、希望轉(zhuǎn)行去課堂上重新發(fā)揮自身才干的人們。”作為一個作家我不喜歡這么說。這種說法估計會把喬治·奧威爾(George Orwell)氣瘋?？墒撬菚翰⒉挥萌?yīng)付搜索引擎。而且他故意得罪人和盡量不得罪人的時候一樣多。

Still, as someone who is trying to start a movement, I like the words a great deal.I've stopped demanding freshness or elegance of them; I only care that they do the job.And it seems they do.Despite the euphemism, cliché and fudge, nearly 650 people have applied already.Most are longish in the tooth.All are experienced, many impressively so.But most pleasingly, some are shaping up to be absolute corkers.
不過，作為一個試著發(fā)起一場運動的人，我又很是喜歡這些詞。我已經(jīng)不再追求它們是不是新穎或簡潔；我只在意它們能不能起效果。而且它們似乎奏效了。即使當中不乏委婉語、陳詞濫調(diào)和含糊其辭，它們也已經(jīng)幫我們吸引到了將近650名申請者。這些人大多數(shù)都上了年紀。他們都經(jīng)驗豐富，很多人尤為資深。而最令人欣喜的是，有些人絕對會成為杰出的教師。