11年高翻翻译实践考题：

第一题是10年11月18日的New York Times上的《Understanding the Puzzling Nature of Poverty》原文

一、PONDICHERRY, INDIA — Rahul Gandhi, the general secretary of India’s Congress party, often says that there (exist) “two Indias” — one of the rich, and one of the poor.

Those two Indias were in evidence a (couple) of weeks ago, when closely timed events on opposite sides of the planet brought into relief the deep divides that in many ways define this country.

In Mumbai on Nov. 7, President Barack Obama told a group of students that India was no longer a “(rising) power,” but rather an “already risen” power. He celebrated an economy that “has risen at a breathtaking (rate).”

Three days earlier, in New York, the United Nations (released) the 20th edition of its Human Development Report, a publication that has in many ways become the authoritative measure of poverty and deprivation.

India (ranked) 119th of 169 countries. The nation’s eight poorest states contain as many poor as the 26 poorest African countries combined. In terms of (life) expectancy and even gender inequality, India rates below its neighbors of Bangladesh and Pakistan.

None of these figures (deny)  the remarkable strides India has made in recent years. But if India is indeed a risen power, then it has risen despite its terrible (poverty) — despite lingering inequality and despite widespread deprivation that has (left)  millions in conditions that are almost medieval.

After nearly two decades of economic changes that were to have ushered in an era of prosperity, it is clear that in some ways the nation has been na?ve: high growth rates alone cannot (cure) poverty.

The problem, as Anirudh Krishna, a political scientist at Duke University in North Carolina, and the author of a remarkable new study on poverty, put it to me, is that “poverty in India has become very resilient. The numbers hardly budge.”

Indeed, while official estimates suggest that poverty has declined since the advent of reforms, other recent studies suggest that it is in fact far more widespread than had been thought.

At least three government committees have been (formed) to count the poor in India. The variance in their findings — (ranging) from 37.2 percent to 77 percent — suggests not only the prevalence of poverty, but also that its very nature is misunderstood. For all the attention directed at the issue, poverty remains something of a (mystery).

Mr. Krishna’s study, published in September as “One Illness Away: Why People Become Poor and How They Escape Poverty,” is in large part an effort to peel away the layers of this mystery. The outcome of a decade of work in five countries, and the result of conversations and surveys with more than 35,000 families, one of its chief goals — and accomplishments — is to flesh out our understanding of economic deprivation.

括号里头的是要求填词的地方，只记得这些个空了。。。
最后三段是要求翻译滴~~ 也就是第二大题~

There are several insights in this book, but one of Mr. Krishna’s more important is that, as he writes, “poverty is not an undifferentiated mass living beneath some theoretical or statistical line.” It is, rather, a constantly churning pool of deprivation, with those who escape being replenished by a new population that has fallen from relative prosperity.

This understanding of poverty as nonstatic, always in flux, has policy implications. It suggests that welfare programs need to be designed not just to raise people out of poverty, but also to prevent those who are not poor — and thus perhaps off the radar of such programs — from descending into poverty.

In particular, Mr. Krishna’s research highlights the major role played by illness in pushing people over the edge. He writes about “chains of negative events” that lead, through costly hospital bills, unemployment and debt, into economic hardship.

三，中翻英 （60分）

他，年过四十，有房有车，企业高管，薪水丰厚，长相一般，未婚，人们把他称呼为“钻石王老五”。女孩子的妈妈看到这样的单身男人，会对自家女儿循循善诱：“这是理想的结婚对象，一定要抓住。”

她，年过三十五，有房有车，企业高管，薪水丰厚，长相姣好，未婚，人们把她称为“剩女”。周围很多人(包括她的妈妈)都会对她叨叨：“这个年纪了，眼光不要太高，凑合嫁个人好了。”

这种现象随处可见，却也着实吊诡：两人各方面条件都不相伯仲，可一个在“婚姻市场”奇货可居，另一个被逼着要“打折”，原因只是性别不同，并无其他。


我有些惶惑了，不是说男女平等吗？可在发达的都市社会，“婚姻市场”上“重男轻女”的倾向如此明显，以至可以毫不掩饰对大龄单身女性的歧视，原因何在？

持“进化论”观点的人告诉我，这是人类在几百万年的演化史中自然而然形成的倾向：较年长的男性意味着稳定的生存条件，较高的社会地位，以及更多的智慧，而年轻的女性则意味着更好的生育能力，他们的结合更有利于后代的生存和发展，所以，“年长男性”(也不能太老)与“年轻女子”之所以在“婚姻市场”上赢得青睐，背后原因正是人们百万年来形成的择偶倾向，这种倾向是无意识层面的，要想改变，谈何容易。

持“文化论”观点的人告诉我，中国自古“男尊女卑”，就算在西方，女性也不过是在百多年前才获得了与男性平等的地位，事实上，直到上世纪五六十年代，女性要在高级MOD机构或学术机构谋得一席之地也很少见，这种状况直到最近才慢慢改变。“连女权领袖波伏娃都把女性称为‘第二性’，骨子里的东西，哪有那么容易改变。”