|
 Back
to replies by Philip Coen (alias Hoang Ba Cong)
Ðọc
"Bàitrảlời của Philip Coen"
From:
Lylii@xxx.com
Date:
Fri, 20 Sep 2002
03:57:13 EDT
Subject:
Philip Coen
To:
webmaster@vny2k.com
CC:
minhho_2001@xxx.au
Minh Hồ
Firstly, I thank you, the Editor,
for your generosity in providing visitors a forum on vny2k
through which they can freely exchange ideas. Secondly, I
thank Philip Cohen for spending some time to discuss the
questions I raised in my previous email. Now, I would like
express some thought that crossed my mind whilst reading
his discussion.
1. Fiscal Policy
1.1 Philip's question
"Is the usage Australian or American?" is not
relevant because "fiscal policy" is a generic
term for a macroeconomic policy that involves government
spending and tax collections for the purpose of achieving
reasonably full employment and non-inflationary economic
growth. The aim of these revenue collections and spending
programs is to control the level of demand in the economy,
and "chínhsách thuế" is, therefore, only one
arm of a fiscal policy. On a practical level, a budget
provides the framework for the conduct of the fiscal
policy adopted by the central government of a country - it
does not matter whether that country is Australia or the
US - and shows the government's revenue sources and areas
of spending in a particular year. On the revenue side
there are (i) direct taxation e.g. personal income tax,
company tax; (ii) indirect taxation e.g. sale tax, excise
duties, etc.; and (iii) non-tax revenue such as sales of
public-owned assets, etc. On the spending side there are
education, health, defence, social security payments,
payments to state governments, etc.
Due to the specialised nature of
the term "fiscal policy", which is unlike
general English terms, its meaning does not change when
its context changes. It is thus unnecessary that the term
"fiscal policy" must be seen in the context in
which it is used before a decision can be made as to
whether it should be translated into Vietnamese as
"chínhsách thuế" or not.
1.2 Philip wrote:
"Minh appears to be mistaken about the true
responsibilities of the Australian
Department of Treasury and
Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA) and their
various "agencies" but did not say what the true
responsibilities of these departments and their various
agencies were in terms of "fiscal policy" and
"budget".
As far as I know, the Australian
Department of Treasury advises, amongst other things, the
Australian government, headed by the Australian Prime
Minister, on the formulation and implementation of
effective macroeconomic policy, including fiscal policy.
In particular, Treasury advises on the budget and taxation
policies. In addition, the preparation of budget involves
several phrases during which the Prime Minister, the
Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Administration
meet in advance every year to establish "the big
picture": priorities and strategy for the next
financial year. Subsequently, agencies within departments
prepare budget submissions detailing new funding
requirements based upon the outcome of the meeting. Then
these submissions are to be provided to the Department of
Finance for agreement of the costing so that the budget
can be finalised - which is logical because Finance also
advises on accounting policies and prepares financial
reports for all government departments.
It is therefore not incorrect to
state that 'the Australian Treasury Department is the
government body responsible for formulating fiscal policy
and the resulting annual government budgets'. By the way,
the fact that it is nobody else but the Treasurer who
traditionally hands down the annual budget speaks volume
about the scope of responsibilities of the Department of
Treasurỵ
1.3 From the discussion
above, it should be clear that the Australian Department
of Treasury and Department of Finance and Administration
each has different, but related, responsibilities. The
former, however, plays a more strategic role than the
latter in the Australian economỵ But that is a side
issue. Another side issue - since it has been raised by
Philip - is how the terms "Department of
Treasury" and "Department of Finance" and
their derivatives such as "Treasurer" and
"Minister of Finance" should be translated into
Vietnamese. The situation is obviously more complicated
than what Philip seemed to have thought as he put it:
"The older Vietnamese translation of the title of the
US 'Department of Treasury' was Bộ TàiChính, then in
the late 1970's the 'word-for-word' translators appeared
and changed it to Bộ NgânKhố. The original translated
the idea and function contained in the title, the latter
translated the title only".
The situation is even much more
complicated if government departments at the state levels
are taken into consideration. For example, there is the
Department of Treasury and Finance in the State of
Victoria, but there is the Department of Treasury in the
State of New South Wales. On the other hand, there is the
Department of Finance in, say, California State in
addition to the Treasurer's Office (a title equal to
"Department of Treasury").
1.4 Philip wrote: "in
the US they use the term 'fiscal year' for 'financial
year' and their journalists often just use the term
'fiscal' as in fiscal 99 meaning the financial year ending
in 1999". In fact, when "fiscal" collocates
with "year" the whole phrase means
"financial year" (an accounting period of twelve
months) and this meaning is universal throughout the
English-speaking part of the world - not just in the US,
but also in Australia, the UK, etc. you name it! But that
is the one and only exception. On all other occasions,
"fiscal" does not mean "financial" or
anything for that matter but "connected with public
money" when it collocates with, for examples,
"policies", or "measures", or
"reforms", "stability", etc.
2. The Dilemma
Philip is correct when he though
"a $350 000 dilemma" is a piece of journalistic
cant. The phrase was quoted from a text (of about 250
words) which had been taken out from a newspaper. It is
impossible to reproduce the text because it was part of an
examination paper on translation that had to be handed
back to the examiner. However, it should not be the case
that because '$350 000' does not collocate with 'dilemma'
in English then 'tiếnthoái lưỡngnan' can collocate
with 'trịgiá' in Vietnamese. 'Tiếnthoái lưỡngnan'
does not collocate with 'trịgiá' because it just
happens to be that way - has anyone ever heard or read
such Vietnamese phrases as: "Ông X lâmvào cảnh
tiếnthoáilưỡng nan trịgiá $350,000", or
"Bà Y lâmvào thế tiếnthoáilưỡngnan vìtrịgiá
$350,000"?
Without the need to refer to the
context in which the phrase "a dilemma $âŨỠâŨƠ"
is used, one can turn it into a
"one-size-fits-all" paraphrase: "(người)
lâmvào cảnh tiếnthoáilưỡng nan vì không biết
có nên (hành động) (tài sản) trịgiá ($âŨỢ)
hay không", then the rest is just a simple
"fill in the space" exercise: "Ông X lâmvào
cảnh tiếnthoáilưỡng nan vì không biết có nên
mua căn nhà trịgiá 350,000 ngàn đô-la hay không"
, or "Bà Y lâmvào thế tiếnthoáilưỡngnan vi
không biết có nên bán lại căn nhà trịgiá
350,000 ngàn đô-la hay không", etc.
Regards
Minh Ho
minhho_2001@xxx.au
 To
"Thử
Ðitìm Cáitươngđương Trong Phiêndịch"
by Frank Trinh
Ýkiến
bạnđọc về bàiviết
"Ðitìm Cáitươngdương Trong Phiêndịch"
của Trịnh Nhật:
Ðọcthêm
ýkiến của Minh Hồ về
Vietnamese translation in Australia:
A missing link của Frank Trịnh
|
