翻译案例
个人介绍英语翻译案例
个人介绍英语翻译案例朝向不一样的岗位，大家应当依据每个职位特点来制做自身的个人简介。
下边由我给你给予的个人介绍英语翻译案例，期待能帮上你。
个人介绍英语翻译案例(一)Skills:Typing (65 wpm),Dictaphone.Multi-line Phones/Switchboard,Ten key (110 kspm) Digital DECmate computer,bookkeeping,credit checks,statistical typing.Extensive business experience including accounting firms,legal firms,financial firms,insurance companies,transportation companies,medical environments,government agencies and non-profit groups.Offer common sense,ability to take initiative,quality orientation and the ability to see a job thorough.Outstanding communications skills...Extremely hardworking and dedicated.EMPLOYMENT:MARSTON CONVENT,Laramie,WY,1988-PresentReceptionistAnswer phone,greet visitors and provide information,tours,and literature.Record and monitor thank-you notes for all received donations.Perform light typing,filling,and word processing.WYOMING PUBLIC TELEVISION,Laramie,WY,1987-88TelemarketerSolicit donations.Monitored the ordering of informative pamphlets,placards,buttons,tee-shirts,etc.RINALDO RANCH,Laramie,WY,1983-88SecretaryProvided word processing,customer relations,some accounts payable processing.Implemented new system for check processing,increased prompt payment of client bills.WOMANPOWER INC.,Laramie,WY,1975-83Statistical TypistPrepared health record documentation of infectious disease patients at State hospital.Managed training of new hires.EDUCATION:TRAINING,INC.,Boston,MA,1965An office careers training program in bookkeeping,typing,reception, word processing,and office procedures.ST.JOSEPHS ACADEMY,Portland,MaineHigh School DiplomaObjective is unnecessary because resume illustrates a clear career path.Work history is stated in reverse chronological order,with most recent employment listed first.个人介绍英语翻译案例(二)My name is Xie Dong. I was born on August 25, 1965, in Hengyang, Hunan Province. In 1977 I graduated from Harbin Technical Institute where I majored in electronic engineering, and then I was assigned to work in an electronic apparatus factory as a technician for nine years. During this period I gained some practical experience in designing and manufacturing several varieties of electronic apparatus. In the fall of 1983, I was admitted to the Department of Mathematics, Zhejiang University as a graduate student. Six months before I took the examinations, I started to study higher algebra and analysis by myself in my leisure time. Since the enrollment I have completed all the courses required by the graduate program, making straight A both in my undergraduate and graduate courses. My performance in the graduate seminars of Differential Calculus and Mathematical and Physical Formulas shows that I have got a good grasp of the fundamentals of mathematics.I have been studying English intensively for six months. I have attended an English class taught by an American professor. Ms. Kathy Swift, from the City University of New York. According to her, within a few weeks of my arrival abroad, I should have no difficulty either in functioning on a daily basis or in participating fully in graduate studies.Presently I am interested in applied mathematics and later I would like to do research in control theory. If I am accepted as a graduate student. I plan to stay for 2-5 years pursuing a Ph.d. degree. I am sure I would make progress in my future career.个人介绍英语翻译案例(三)AUTOBIOGRAPHIC STATEMENTMy name is Harry Lin. On May 25, 1958, I was born in Xinying, a little town in Southern Fujian. My father is a farmer, planting bananas and pineapples, and my mother takes care of the house. I have two brothers and one sister. Though not well-to-do, my parents have been able to provide the whole family with sufficient means to live decently and enjoy all modern conveniences.My early education was received in my hometown, i.e. six years in primary school and three years in junior middle school. After completing nine years of formal education in 1958. I went to Xiamen and participated in the joint entrance examination for five-year junior colleges. Fortunately, I was admitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering at Xiamen Junior Engineering College. I chose Electrical Engineering as my major because, on the one hand , I liked Physics very much; and on the other hand, electrical industry is a major sector of the economy of China.The five years of intensive training came to an end in June 1978 when I received a diploma. And in July 1980. I was hired by Nan Ya plastic Company and have served as a junior electrical engineer at the company to the present. I enjoy the work and feel competent for the job.In working, however, I've Found that what I have learned in school is limited and far from sufficient to handle sophisticated jobs. Therefore, I have decided to extend my education and would like to enter an American institution firstly to earn a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering. Then, if possible, I would like to continue my education toward a Master's degree.After this objective is reached, I will return to my country and seek a job in a public firm. Most probably I will continue to work with Nan Ya Plastic Company。
翻译精品案例展示
经过专业翻译人员评估，该译文质量高，无错别字、语法错误、标点符号等问题，符合 行业标准和规范。
总结
该商务翻译案例展示了高水平的翻译技巧和严谨的工作态度，实现了客户的高标准要求 ，取得了良好的效果。
03
案例三：科技翻译
翻译项目背景
项目来源
某国际知名科技公司委托的专利文献翻译项 目。
原文特点
翻译效果评估
质量标准
遵循行业标准和客户要求，确保译文质量达到优秀水平。
反馈机制
及时收集客户反馈，对译文进行修改和完善，确保满足客户需求。
校对环节
经过多轮校对和润色，确保译文准确无误、表达流畅。
交付时间
按时交付，确保项目进度不受影响。
04
案例四：口译
翻译项目背景
客户：某国际会议组织
翻译语种：英语-中文
质量保证
在翻译过程中多次核对原文和译文，确保准确无误，同时注意译文的 流畅性和可读性。
翻译效果评估
客户反馈
客户对译员的翻译质量和现场表现给予高度评价，认为译员能够 准确传达发言人的意思，语言流畅、表达自然。
自我评估
译员在翻译过程中注重细节和准确性，同时能够灵活应对各种挑战 ，表现出较高的专业素养和责任心。
境。
03
校对阶段
对译文进行仔细校对，检查错 别字、语法错误、标点符号等 细节问题，确保译文质量。
04
技巧应用
在翻译过程中，灵活运用增译 、减译、词类转换等技巧，使 译文更加符合目标受众的语言
习惯和文化背景。
翻译效果评估
客户反馈
客户对译文质量非常满意，认为译文准确传达了原文意思，语言流畅，符合商务语境， 符合目标受众的语言习惯和文化背景。
案例翻译
The Loewen Group and the United States of America,On June 26, 2003 an ICSID Tribunal rendered a decision dismissingclaims made against the United States by a Canadian corporation, the Loewen Group. The underlying litigation occurred in Mississippi statecourts over contract disputes between Loewen and a Mississippi competitor in the funeral home and insurance industry. Loewen's NAFTAclaim against the United States stems from the outcome of that litigation - Loewen lost a $500 million verdict and was compelled to post a 125%bond before it could appeal. Loewen's sought relief under NAFTA claiming that (1) the trial court violated Article 1102 by discriminatingagainst Loewen as a foreign investor, (2) the discrimination resulted in a “inexplicably large” verdict, (3) the trial court violated Article 1105 by failing to offer Loewen “full protection and security” as a result of the irregularities in the trial procedure, and (4) the trial court violated Article1105 by rendering such an excessive verdict. The ICSID Tribunal'sdecision to dismiss Loewen's claims hinged on two important aspects of Loewen's conduct. First, Loewen had failed to exhaust local remedies. The tribunal found that Loewen could have posted the bound and sought an appeal, filed for bankruptcy protection, or filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to stay the Mississippi proceedings. The Because Loewen did not avail itself of all local legal remedies, it was not, according to the tribunal, able to show a violation of customary international law. Second, the ICSID Tribunal also found that it lacked jurisdiction under NAFTA to ultimately decide Loewen's claims against the United States because the parties lacked the international diversity as required by Chapter 11. Because Loewen's real party in interest was an American citizen, it could not maintain a NAFTA claim against the United States.In its conclusion, however, the ICSID Tribunal admonished the conduct of the Mississippi court system, and recognized that Loewen was treated unfairly.Banro Resources v. Democratic Republic of CongoBanro Resources, a Canadian corporation, and the Democratic Republicof the Congo (DRC) were parties to a Mining Convention which provided for the formation of a local project company, SAKIMA, in which BanroResources held 99 per cent of the shares. The Mining Convention included a dispute resolution clause providing for arbitration under theWashington Convention for any dispute arising between Congo, on the one hand, and Banro and SAKIMA, on the other hand. Soon after thecreation of SAKIMA, Congo declared the Convention null and void and seized the offices of the project company. Canada filed an official proteston behalf of its national. A few days later, Banro Resources transferred 93% of SAKIMA's shares to Banro American, a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary whose sole purpose consisted in “holding Banro Resources‟ interest” in SAKIMA's predecessor company “to qualify for political risk insurance through OPIC.” Nine days later, Banro Amer ican filed a requestfor ICSID arbitration.The Tribunal examined jurisdiction over Banro American under the firstprong of Article 25(2)(b) of the Washington Convention by adopting two alternative approaches. Under the first approach, the tribunal rejected jurisdiction, finding that the claimant Banro American was not a party to the arbitration clause; and the right to arbitration under the Washington Convention could not have been transferred to it with the shares from Banro Resources, which was a national of a non-contracting State. Under the second approach, the tribunal pierced the corporate veil to reveal the Canadian parent company as the true Claimant. Under that approach, the tribunal also lacked jurisdiction, because the requirement that the claimant had to be a national of a Contracting State was not being met. Having concluded that under both approaches it lacked jurisdiction, the tribunal further digressed into a lengthy examination of the fact that Banro Resources, the Canadian parent, had sought diplomatic protection, whereas its wholly-owned subsidiary, Banro American had filed a claim before ICSID. Detecting what was, in its view, a possible abuse of the ICSID system, which excludes in Article 27 diplomatic protection of a Contracting State, the tribunal remarked that it could not allow a corporation to “play on the fact that one of the companies of the groupdoes not have the nationality of a Contracting State party to the Convention, and can therefore benefit from diplomatic protection by itshome State, while another subsidiary of the group possesses the nationality of a Contracting State to the Convention and therefore has standing before an ICSID tribunal.”Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v. MexicoThis thoroughly reasoned award decided a dispute arising out of the failure of Mexican authorities to renew the license of a waste site held by TECMED‟s local Mexican subsidiary. As a preliminary matter, the tribunal examined Mexico‟s objections to the tribunal‟s jurisdiction andthe admissibility of the claims ratione temporis. After examining the specific language of the BIT, the tribunal concluded that any breaches occurring before the entry unto force of the BIT were excluded from its jurisdiction. However, the consideration of any acts or omissions that occurred prior to the entry into force, but that in some form contributed to a treaty breach after the entry into force did not fall outside of the tribunal‟s jurisdiction (para. 68). The tribunal further held that temporal limitations to the jurisdiction, as well as to the admissibility of claims were not covered by the most-favored nation clause included in the BIT. The tribunal then held that the Mexican authorities‟ refusal to renew the license and the effects this refusal had on the utility of Claimant‟s investment constituted an expropriation in breach of the BIT. The conduct of the Mexican authorities also resulted in a breach of the “fair and equitable” treatment provision, because it frustrated the fair expectations on which the investment was based, and failed to establish clear guidelines which would have allowed the investor to adjust its acts so as to obtain a renewal of the license. The tribunal rejected the Claimant‟s argument that Mexico also breached the “full protection and security” clause, as well as other guarantees under the BIT, holding that Claimant failed to prove that the Mexican authorities incited social protests against the waste site or failed to take prompt action to contain those protests.In calculating the damages resulting from the BIT breaches, the tribunalrejected the DCF methodology proposed by Claimant as too speculative, because of the short duration of the operation of the project which resulted in a lack of objective data. Instead, the tribunal determined the damages on the basis of the market value of the assets at the time of the expropriation, derived from an auction sale, including goodwill. It also awarded interest at 6% p.a., compounded annually from the date of the taking until the date of the effective payment.Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A.& Vivendi Universal v Republicof ArgentinaICSID Ad Hoc Committee Partially Annuls Award. An ICSID Ad Hoc Committee has partially annulled an ICSID tribunal decision that had dismissed claims on the merits because an Argentine provincial court had exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the relevant concession agreement. The Ad Hoc Committee held that the tribunal …manifestly exceeded its powers‟ by not examining the merits of the claim under the Argentine-French bilateral investment treaty. An ICSID tribunal having jurisdiction under a BIT in respect of a claim based on substantive provisions of that BIT cannot dismiss the claim on the ground that it should have been dealt with by a national court.Wena Hotels Limited v Arab Republic of EgyptThe dispute arose out of agreements concluded between Wena Hotels, Limited, a U.K. company, and Egyptian Hotels Company (“EHC”), a State-owned Egyptian company, to develop and manage two hotels in Luxor and Cairo. Soon after the signature of those agreement, serious disagreements about the parties‟ respective agreements arose. On April 1, 1991, EHC repossessed both hotels and evicted Claimant. In January 1992, Egypt's Chief Prosecutor ruled that the seizure was illegal. The hotels were then restored to Wena with all fixtures and furniture having been removed. Two days before the Cairo hotel was returned to Wena, the Ministry of tourism withdrew its operating license because of alleged fire safety violations. Wena was ultimately evicted from the Cairo hotel in1995, while the Luxor Hotel was placed in judicial receivership in 1997. Egypt refused to compensate Wena for the losses it had experienced. The dispute was brought under the Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between Egypt and the United Kingdom (“Egypt –U.K. BIT”).The Tribunal held that Egypt violated its obligation under Article 2(2) of the Egypt –U.K. BIT to accord Wena's investment “fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security.” Although it was unclear whether Egyptian officials other than officials of EHC directly participated in the April 1, 1991, seizures, the Tribunal found that Egypt had been aware of EHC's intentions to seize the hotels and failed to take actions to prevent EHC from doing so. Once the seizures had occurred, both the police and the Ministry of Tourism took no immediate action to restore the hotels promptly to Wena's control. Finally, Egypt never imposed substantial sanctions on EHC or its senior officials, suggesting Egypt's approval of EHC's actions. The Tribunal further held that Egypt …s actions constituted an expropriation without “prompt, adequate and effective compensation” in violation of Article 5 of the Egypt – U.K. BIT, because Egypt ha d deprived Wena of its “fundamental rights ofownership” by allowing EHC “forcibly to seize the hotels, to possess them illegally for nearly a year, and to return the hotels stripped of much of their furniture and fixtures.” The Tribunal also rejected Egyp t's argument that Wena's claims were time barred observing inter alia that municipal statutes of limitations were not binding before an international tribunal.Ruling on damages, the Tribunal rejected Wena's claim for lost profits as too speculative, relying on the holding in Metalclad that “where the enterprise has not operated for a sufficiently long time to establish a performance record or where it has failed to make a profit, future profits cannot be used to determine going concern or fair market value.” The Tribunal found that Wena had operated the Luxor hotel for less than eighteen months and not even completed its renovations on the Nile hotel before they were seized and there was some question whether Wena had sufficient finances to fund its renovation and operation of the hotels. Hence, the Tribunal held that the market value of the investment was “best arrived at, in this case, by reference to Wena's actual investments in the two hotels. The Tribunal awarded compound interest observing that“an awa rd of compound (as opposed to simple) interest is generally appropriate in most modern, commercial arbitrations.”Alex Genin v. EstoniaICSID Tribunal Rejects Claim Against Estonia. An ICSID claim was brought by American investment entities against Estonia pursuant to a United States-Estonian bilateral investment treaty. The ICSID Tribunal first held that it had jurisdiction under the BIT as the purchase of an Estonian bank was an …investment‟ within the meaning of the BIT and domestic proceedings in Estonia did not divest the tribunal of jurisdiction. On the merits, the tribunal held that there was no indication that Estonia violated the BIT's …fair and equitable treatment‟ clause, which it defined as an international minimum standard that prohibited willful neglect of duty, an insufficiency of action falling below international standards, or subjective bad faith.SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic ofPakistanTribunal Has Jurisdiction of BIT Claims but Not Breach of Contract Claims On August 6, 2003 an ICSID Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to decide over a company's claims arising under the Swiss-Pakistan Bilateral Investment Treaty, but not over claims arising under a contract of the two parties, unless those claims amount to breaches of the substantive standards of the BIT. The Tribunal found that pursuant to an interpretation of the Swiss-Pakistan BIT, its jurisdiction was exclusive and not shared with the arbitration tribunal constituted under the contract. However, the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction over claims based on the contract, which did not amount to breaches of the substantive standards of the BIT. The tribunal therefore also denied Pakistan's request to stay the ICSID arbitration pending a resolution of the Pakistani arbitration.CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of ArgentinaCMS, a United States company, brought the dispute against Argentina on the basis of the Argentina –United States Bilateral Investment Treaty,alleging that a number of measures taken by Argentina as a result of a major economic and financial crisis had an adverse impact on itsinvestment in a local gas utility company resulting in violations of the BIT. Argentina filed a number of objections to the tribunal‟s jurisdiction and the admissibility of CMS‟s claims, all of which were rejected by thetribunal.The tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction, holding that CMS had made aprima facie showing that the economic measures taken by Argentina had adversely affected CMS‟ investment.As a shareholder in a local utility company, CMS was entitled under the Washington Convention to bring claims independently from the local company. The fact that CMS was only a minority shareholder in the local utility company was not an obstacle to bringing a claim, given the broad scope of the term “investment” both under Article 25 of the Washington Convention and the Argentina –U.S. BIT. The tribunal also rejected Argentina‟s arguments that CMS should have submitted to the local jurisdiction of Argentine courts, holding that CMS‟s rights under the BIT were distinguishable from the rights of the local company under a license agreement, to which CMS was not a party, and constituted a separate cause of action. Hence, the dispute settlement provisions under the license agreement between the local company and Argentina could not be a bar to the tribunal‟s jurisdiction over a dispute between CMS and Argentina. In addition, the BIT‟s “fork-in-the-road” provision had not been triggered, because CMS had never submitted to local courts.Dismissing further objections by Argentina, the tribunal held, inter alia, that Article 42 of the Washington Convention concerning the applicable law did not apply to jurisdictional determinations; that certain claims relating to events that had occurred after the filing of the Request of Arbitration were admissible as “incidental or additional claims” pursuant to Note B to Arbitration Rule 40, because they arose out of the subject-matter of the dispute, namely the alleged loss by CMS of its investment in the local gas utility company; and that the progress of negotiations between Argentina and various public utilities companies was irrelevant, as those were res inter alios acta.Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco Construction Contract Constituted an Investment and was Subject to Arbitration On July 23, 2001 an ICSID Tribunal held that a construction contract constituted an investment both under the BIT and Article 25 of the Washington Convention. The BIT defined investments very broadly to include rights of an economic nature, such as those created under the construction contract. It observed that the provision in Article 1 of the BIT defining investments referred merely to the validity of the investment, but not to its characterization as an investment under domestic law. It also found the claimants had not waived their right to choose ICSID as a forum for dispute settlement, they had agreed in the construction contract to the jurisdiction of domestic courts only because they had no choice but to accept the jurisdiction of the local courts when concluding the contracts. Hence, the dispute settlement clause in the construction contract did not constitute a choice of forum as provided under Article 8 of the BIT. Finally, the tribunal held that it retained jurisdiction in relation to breaches of contract …that would constitute, at the same time, a violation of the Bilateral Treaty by the State,‟ but excluded …claims that are based solely on a breach of contract.‟SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance, S.A.v. Republic of thePhilippinesTribunal Determines if Breach of Contract Claim can be Brought Under BIT: On January 29, 2004 an ICSID Tribunal considered whether SGS could bring what were essentially claims for non-fulfillment of a contract under the Switzerland-Philippines BIT. It first considered the BIT's umbrella clause and concluded that it renders failures to observe contractual commitments with regard to specific investments into breaches of the B IT. It held that the term …disputes with respect to investments‟ as used in the jurisdictional clause of the Switzerland-Philippines BIT, is not limited to the legal classification of the claim. It hence concluded that in principle SGS was entitled to refer a contractual dispute to ICSID arbitration. However, the tribunal gave effect to the dispute settlement clause in the contract, by which the parties had agreed to refer all disputes exclusively to Philippine courts, holding that the BIT did not purport to override such clauses. The tribunalobserved that a claim arising out of the contract would be inadmissible until the domestic court had clarified the scope or extent of Philippinesobligation to pay. The tribunal did not dismiss the claim, but instead stayed the proceedings until the amount due under the contract wasdetermined.Azurix Corp. v. Argentine RepublicAzurix, a US investor, indirectly owned Azurix Buenos Aires (ABA),which concluded a concession agreement with the Province of Buenos Aires providing water and sewerage services in the province. Azurixalleged that Argentina had breached various obligations owed to Azurix under the 1991 Argentina-United States BIT in respect to Azurix's investment in ABA.Argentina's first objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction was that the parties to the concession agreement had agreed to submit all disputes to the courts of La Plata and had expressly waived “any other forum or jurisdiction that may correspond due to any reason.” Argentinamaintained that the waiver language precluded claims under the dispute mechanisms contained in the Argentina-U.S. BIT. Relying on the Vivendi annulment decision and Lanco v. Argentina, the tribunal distinguished Azurix's BIT claims from any claims arising under the concession agreement. The waiver language referred only to the latter and was thus irrelevant. Argentina's second objection to jurisdiction was that the dispute had already been submitted to the courts of Argentina under the BIT's fork-in-the-road provision. The tribunal also rejected this objection, confirming what is rapidly becoming well-established arbitral jurisprudence, namely that the clause is triggered only where the parties and the cause of action are identical. Since the cause of action for the contract claims was different than that for the BIT claims, recourse to the local courts for breach of contract as opposed to breach of the BIT did not prevent submission of the BIT claims to arbitration. The tribunal also distinguished the investor from the local project company; the latter's use of local courts could not trigger the “fork in the road” provision against the investor, because the two were different entities.Argentina raised a further objection, alleging that Azurix lacked jus standi to bring a claim against Argentina. In support, it relied on the holding in Barcelona Traction that shareholders in a local project company lack thejus standi to file an indirect claim. Consistent with the holdings by other tribunals, the tribunal rejected that argument on the basis of the wording of Article 25 of the Washington Convention and of Article I of the Argentina-U.S. BIT.Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic ofVenezuelaICSID Tribunal Holds V enezuela Breached Concession Agreement: On September 23, 2003 an ICSID tribunal held that V enezuela had breached the Concession Agreement with Aucoven, in which Aucoven agreed to operate and maintain a highway linking Caracas with its international airport while V enezuela's obligations under the Agreement were mainly related to the financing of the investments. The Tribunal rejected V enezuela's contention that force majeure in the form of actual and feared future public unrest had excused its performance. The tribunal further held that V enezuela had breached the Concession Agreement by failing to grant a guarantee to a potential lender, by failing to pay Aucoven the minimum guaranteed income and by initiating proceedings before the V enezuelan Supreme Court to seek a declaration of termination of the Concession Agreement, although it had agreed in the Concession Agreement to submit all disputes concerning, inter alia, its termination exclusively to ICSID arbitration. The tribunal also rejected V enezuela's argument that the Concession Agreement was still in force, and instead held that Aucoven had validly terminated the Agreement on June 13, 2000.。
中国式英语翻译搞笑
中国式英语翻译搞笑经过几十年的发展，“中国式英语”已经成为一种普遍的现象，人们在使用英语的过程中也经常会遇到诸多语言上的“趣事”。
作为中国人，当我们看到这样“翻译”出来的句子时，有时不由得好笑。
其实，中国式英语给我们带来的不仅仅是笑声，它还可以教会我们很多东西，从中我们也可以看出中国人在使用英语时特有的一些语言习惯及文化背景。
今天，我们就来看看这样一些中国式英语翻译搞笑的案例。
比如，有网友惊叹道：“今天早晨，我出门去上学，看到一个小贩在摆摊，他喊着：‘一大块熟料，五元一斤’，而桌上写着‘a boiled large material,five yuan a kilogram’。
”从这个例子可以看出，中国小贩把“熟料”翻译成英语“boiled large material”，而不是正确的“boiled foodstuff”，这就是一个搞笑的例子。
这是因为，中国小贩把“熟料”想成“大块料”，而没有想到大家联想到的“料理”的意思。
另一个搞笑的例子是：一家售卖披萨的餐馆，在招牌上写着“Regular Pizza,six yuan a slice”，可是这里的“regular”指的竟然是“常规”的意思，而不是“普通”的意思，也就是“普通披萨”，而不是“普通价格”。
这里，要说的是，中国人在使用英语翻译时，词汇的选取总是含糊不清，容易混淆不同的概念，而造成这样的翻译搞笑事。
此外，还有一个很有趣的“中国式英语”翻译搞笑的案例，一个外国人在唱歌时，歌词中写着:“Blow a kiss,fire a gun，all we need is somebody to lean on”，而中文翻译成“吹一个飞吻，开一枪，我们需要的只是有人可以依靠”。
这里，可以看出，根据这段翻译，可以想见，中国人翻译时，可能会把“leaon on”误解成一种暗示，而不是一种需要有人可依靠的态度，从而把原文中的意思发生变换，也造成了一个“翻译搞笑”的案例。
行业笔译案例库
行业笔译案例库1. 医疗行业案例1：药品说明书翻译原文：请咨询医生或药师了解该药物的剂量和用法。
译文：Please consult your doctor or pharmacist for the dosage and usage of this medication.案例2：医学研究报告翻译原文：该研究结果显示，新药物对治疗癌症有显著效果。
译文：The study results indicate that the new medication has significant effects in treating cancer.2. 金融行业案例3：企业财务报表翻译原文：本年度净利润同比增长20%。
译文：The net profit for this year has increased by 20% compared to the previous year.案例4：投资银行业务文件翻译原文：该交易将使公司获得更多的市场份额。
译文：This transaction will enable the company to gain more market share.3. 法律行业案例5：合同翻译原文：双方同意在合同期限内互不侵犯对方的知识产权。
译文：Both parties agree not to infringe each other's intellectual property rights during the term of the contract.案例6：法庭文件翻译原文：被告在庭审中提出了反驳证据。
译文：The defendant presented contradictory evidence during the trial.4. 科技行业案例7：软件用户手册翻译原文：请按照以下步骤安装软件。
译文：Please follow the steps below to install the software.案例8：技术说明书翻译原文：该设备的操作方式非常简单。
case翻译
case翻译Case一词有多种含义，根据上下文不同可能有不同的翻译。
1. 案例：当"case"指代为具体事例或情况时，可以翻译为"case"、"example"或者"instance"。
例如：- In this case, the defendant admitted to the crime. (在这个案例中，被告承认了犯罪。
)- Let me give you a case to illustrate my point. (让我给你一个案例来说明我的观点。
)2. 个案/病例：在医学或心理学的语境中，"case"常常指代某个病人或个体的情况，可以翻译为"case"或"patient"。
- The doctor is studying a rare case of a mysterious illness. (医生正在研究一例罕见的神秘疾病。
)- The psychologist analyzed the patient's case and prescribed a treatment plan. (心理学家分析了该病人的病例并开出了治疗方案。
)3. 存取方式："case"有时也可以指代某种存取方式，例如"lower case"表示小写，"upper case"表示大写。
- Please make sure your password contains both upper and lower case letters. (请确保您的密码包含大小写字母。
)- The software is case-sensitive, so be careful when entering the code. (该软件区分大小写，输入代码时请小心。
英文翻译成中文例子
英文翻译成中文例子案例一：Modern CavemenCave exploration, or potholing, as it has come to be known, is a relatively new sport. Perhaps it is the desire for solitude or the chance of making an unexpected discovery that lures men down to the depths of the earth. It is impossible to give a satisfactory explanation for a pot-holer's motives. For him, caves have the same peculiar fascination which high mountains have for the climber. They arouse instincts which can only be dimly understood. Exploring really deep caves is not a task for the Sunday afternoon rambler. Such undertakings require the precise planning and foresight of military operations. It can take as long as eight days to rig up rope ladders and to establish supply bases before a descent can be made into a very deep cave. Precautions of this sort are necessary, for it is impossible to foretell the exact nature of the difficulties which will confront the potholer. The deepest known cave in the world is the Gouffre Berger near Grenoble. It extends to a depth of 3723 feet.This immense chasm has been formed by an underground stream which has tunnelled a course through a flaw in the rocks. The entrance to the cave is on a plateau in the Dauphine Alps. As it is only six feet across, it is barely noticeable. The cave might never have been discovered had not the entrance been spotted by the distinguished French potholer, Berger. Since its discovery, it has become a sort of potholers' Everest. Though a number of descents have been made, much of it still remains to be explored.A team of potholers recently went down the Gouffre Berger. After entering the narrow gap on the plateau, they climbed down the steep sides of the cave until they came to a narrow corridor. They had to edge their way along this, sometimes wading across shallow streams, or swimming across deep pools. Suddenly they came to a waterfall which dropped into an underground lake at the bottom of the cave. They plunged into the lake, and after loading their gear on an inflatable rubber dinghy, let the current carry them to the other side. To protect themselves from the icy water, they had to wear special rubber suits. At the far end of the lake, they came to huge piles of rubble which had been washed up by the water. In thispart of the cave, they could hear an insistent booming sound which they found was caused by a small water-spout shooting down into a pool from the roof of the cave. Squeezing through a cleft in the rocks, the potholers arrived at an enormous cavern, the size of a huge concert hall. After switching on powerful arc lights, they saw great stalagmites—some of them over forty feet high--rising up like tree-trunks to meet the stalactites suspended from the roof. Round about, piles of lime-stone glistened in all the colours of the rainbow. In the eerie silence of the cavern, the only sound that could be heard was made by water which dripped continuously from the high dome above them.洞穴勘查——或洞穴勘探——是一项比较新的体育活动。
经典广告翻译案例
经典广告翻译案例1.Just do it.跟着感觉走。
（耐克运动鞋）2.Ask for more.渴望无限。
（百事流行鞋）3.Obey your thirst.服从你的渴望。
（雪碧）4.Feel the new space.感受新境界。
（三星电子）5.Focus on life.瞄准生活。
（奥林巴斯相机）6.Good to the last drop.滴滴香浓，意犹未尽。
麦氏咖啡）7.A Kodak moment.就在柯达一刻。
（柯达胶卷）Share moments.Share life.（柯达胶卷）8.Started Ahead.成功之路，从头开始。
（飘柔洗发水）9.Make yourself heard.理解就是沟通。
（爱立信手机）10.Intelligence everywhere.智慧演绎，无处不在。
（摩托罗拉手机）11.The choice of a new generation.新一代的选择。
（百事可乐）12.We integrate，you communicate.我们集大成，您超越自我。
（三菱电工）13.The relentless pursuit of perfection.不懈追求完美。
（凌志轿车）14.Poetry in motion，dancing close to me.动态的诗，向我舞近。
（丰田汽车）Where there is a way，there is a Toyota。
有路就有丰田车.田汽车）15.Let's make things better.让我们做得更好。
（飞利浦电器）16.Good teeth，good health.牙齿好，身体就好。
（高露洁牙膏）17.Can't beat the real thing.挡不住的诱惑。
（可口可乐）Things go betterwith Coco-Cola.（Coco-Cola）饮可口可乐，万事如意。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
IPad Air Flash Back, How To Do? IPad Air Software Flash Back
IPad Air flashes back, how to do?
Released in 2013 by Apple Inc, iPad air is a type of tablet PC,with very good configuration and excellent performance.Some new friends may have discovered at the beginning of use that some softwares and games would flash back. What follows in the article will teach you how to solve the problem.
Aiming at the problem,many net friends may have known the third-party softwares of Apple Inc, such as advertisements of PP assistant、91assistant Tong Bu etc. However, the use of these third-party softwares is the real cause of flashback.When installing genuine softwares in the Apple market, there is a number signature.When you use these free-installed softwares, the number signature will disappear and cause softwares flash back.
1.If meet with this problem, there are many solutions.To make the simple PP assistant as an example:first search PP assistant on Bai Du,and download and install it.
2.Then, connect pad air and computer with USB, and click “repair flashes back”below the software panel.
3. After scores of seconds, softwares would automatically recover.You can pull out USB and softwares can be normally used.
How to thoroughly solve software flashback?
1.First suggestion to develop a good habit, not to use Apple’s third- party softwares.
2. Then to register an account on Apple’s web, and install softwares in App store; If you do not use the third- party softwares at all, you can thoroughly resolve the problem of flashback.
You would learn how to deal with the problem with the above information offered. According to some cellphone friends, software flashback occur in the process of using ipad air,and it may be caused by the installment of third-party softwares.。